The Canadian Parliaments Citizenship and Immigration Committee last week recommended some major changes to the Citizenship Act.
On the question of residency requirement the Committee recommends that time spent in Canada after being granted legal status including refugee status should count on a day for day basis toward the citizenship residency requirement up to a reasonable maximum such as six months. At present every day that an individual is present in Canada prior to attaining permanent resident Status counts as one-half of a day of residency for the purpose of citizenship.
Currently citizenship is granted to a permanent resident who has accumulated at least three years of residency within the four years immediately preceding the application. But the term residency is not defined in the Act. The Committee recommends that the definition of residency in the new Act should require a meaningful degree of physical presence for citizenship purposes. The Committee did not heed the advice of lawyers specializing in immigration and citizenship matters who favored retaining the current requirement. They reminded the committee that Canada’s immigration program facilitates the entry of foreign entrepreneurs and facilities the entry of foreign entrepreneurs and investors and that is only realistic to expect them to maintain their international ties.
In fact the Committee seems concemed about the abuse of physical presence requirement and recommends requiring permanent residents to have their passports Stamped to deal with the problem of insufficient mechanisms available to record accurately their absences from this country.
The Committee report also recommends that a Canadian citizenship who as an adult voluntarily and formally acquires the nationality or citizenship of another country except by marriage or other circumstances such as adoption should cease to be a Canadian citizen The Committee report notes that most of the witnesses expressed concern about the current practice of allowing dual citizenship and questioned how it is possible to swear loyalty and allegiance to more than one country and believe the practice diminishes the value of Canadian citizenship. However others pointed to the convenience of travel that multiple passports may provide. The report adds that some spoke of their continuing love of their former homeland and how hard it would be symbolically give that up. Giving up a former citizenship tic could also make it difficult for those who change their mind and wish to return home.
The Official Opposition Bloc Quebecois in a dissenting minority report states that we are far from convinced that citizens with dual nationality have the intention these recommendations would seem to attribute to them having dual nationality need not mean either less loyalty toward ones country of origin or a less firm allegiance to Canada. It adds we can understand that naturalized citizens who opt for Canadian citizenship may not want to renounce their original citizenship. There are emotional as well as family tics with their homeland. Having dual nationality can also facilitate travel.
If the recommendations are accepted by the Government children born in Canada will not automatically be Canadian citizens The Committee recommends that they should be Canadian citizens only if one or both of their parents is a permanent resident or Canadian citizen. This rule will not apply if it would cause the person made for a child born to a refugee claimant. The child will be granted Canadian citizenship automatically once the parent has been accepted as a refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board
The Parliamentary committee recommends that children adopted abroad be accorded citizenship without first being required to become permanent residents and that citizenship should not be granted to any individual who within the three year period immediately preceding the application or between the date of the application and the time that the person would otherwise be granted citizenship has committed an offence outside Canada that if committed in Canada would constitute an offence.
The Committees Bloc Quebecois MP Osvaldo Nunez dismissed the report because it does not recognize that Quebec constitutes a distinct society and fails to reflect the Quebec reality. Nunez also questioned the timing of the Parliamentary committee hearings on citizenship given the pending election in Quebec likely to be won by referendum on Quebec Separation.
The Bloc also objects to the proposed oath of allegiance to Canada and the Queen. The Bloc Quebecois dissent states that As sovereigntists we cannot accept an oath that requires residents of Quebec to swear allegiance to Canada until such time as Quebec has either ratified the Constitution or opted for sovereignty.
Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister Sergio Marchi had called on the Parliamentary committee to undertake the review because the Citizenship Act has not been substantially updated since its inception in 1977.
Provided by: Bhupinder S. Liddar Ottawa Ont. Canada
Article extracted from this publication >> July 1, 1994
