If Bill C-24 passes, Canadian citizenship will be harder to get and easier to lose

Editor’s note: The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers has prepared the following summary of changes to the Citizenship Act proposed in Bill C-24, legislation introduced by the Conservative government in February.

On February 6, 2014 the federal government introduced Bill C-24, a law that changes the Citizenship Act of Canada. This new law changes core aspects of Canadian citizenship as we know it.

If passed, Bill C-24 will make it more difficult for new immigrants to get Canadian citizenship and easier for many Canadians to lose it, especially if they have dual citizenship. Most Canadians do not understand the ways in which Bill C-24 will undermine their fundamental right to be a citizen of Canada. The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers has provided a summary of the most important changes to the Citizenship Act. If you are concerned about the loss of citizenship rights for many Canadians, we urge you to contact your member of parliament before Bill C-24 is passed into law.

In Canada, citizenship has always been secure. Whether native-born or immigrant, once you are granted Canadian citizenship, you are secure. Under the current system, you cannot lose your citizenship unless you obtained it by fraud, and even then, a Federal Court judge must make that decision after a full court hearing. Under the current system, if you do not agree with the judge, you have a right of appeal. Under the new law, there will be several ways to lose your citizenship. As well, the decision as to whether you lose your citizenship will be made by a government bureaucrat who will inform you in writing with no opportunity for a live hearing to defend yourself.

Why will citizenship be harder to get?

New immigrants will have to wait longer before they can apply for citizenship. Older and younger people will now have to pass language and knowledge tests to qualify for citizenship. The citizenship application fees have been tripled. There will be no right of appeal for those who are refused.

1. Language and Canada knowledge tests: Under the new law, all applicants aged 14 to 64 will have to pass language and Canada knowledge tests in English or French. Currently only those age 18 to 55 have to prove their language and knowledge abilities. If Bill C-24 is passed, many older immigrants will have great difficulty passing the language tests. Also, any children and grandparents without documents to prove their language ability will have to pay for the language test.

2. Increased cost of applying for citizenship: The government imposed language testing fees last year. The application fee will now be tripled. As a result, the price of applying for citizenship will now cost 4 times more than it did in 2006.

3. Delay: Today, applicants wait 4-6 years to become citizens due to government delay and inefficiency. With the new law, you will have to wait 8 to 10 years in total to become a citizen from the date you become a permanent resident.

4. More difficult residency requirements: The new law will require people to live in Canada as permanent residents for at least 4 years before they can apply for citizenship. The current rule is 3 years. Under the new law, any time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident (as a student, a worker or a refugee) will no longer count toward the four years residency requirement.

5. No right of appeal to the courts: If your citizenship application is refused, you will no longer have a right of appeal to the Federal Court to challenge the refusal. There will be judicial review but that is not a full and proper appeal.

Why will citizenship be easier to lose?

The new law divides Canadians into two classes of citizens: first class Canadians who hold no other citizenship, and second class Canadians – dual citizens, who can have their right to live in Canada taken away from them. Even if you are born in Canada, you are at risk of losing citizenship if you have dual citizenship or the possibility of dual citizenship. You may not even know that you possess another citizenship. If you have a spouse, parent, or grandparent who is a citizen of another country, you may have a right to citizenship without ever having applied for it. The proposed law would put you at risk of losing your Canadian citizenship if the Minister asserts that you possess or could obtain another citizenship. The burden would be on you to prove otherwise to the Minister’s satisfaction.

The new law will make it easier for the government to take away your citizenship in the following ways:

1. For all naturalized citizens, a federal government official can revoke your citizenship if he believes you never intended to live in Canada. This could happen if you decide to study in, accept a job in, or reside in another country. In contrast, Canadian citizens born in Canada cannot lose their citizenship by living outside of Canada.

2. For Canadians with potential dual citizenship, an official may remove your citizenship for a criminal conviction in another country, even if the other country is undemocratic or lacks the rule of law. The official may also remove your citizenship for certain serious criminal convictions in Canada, even if you have already served your sentence in Canada.

3. The power to remove your citizenship will be given to an official of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The decision may be made in writing with no opportunity for you to speak to the official. Under the current law, to take away your citizenship, the government must make an application to a Federal Court judge where you will have an oral hearing to defend your right to citizenship.


If you wish to learn more about Bill C-24, you may click on the following links:

If you wish to express your concerns about Bill C-24, please contact your local member of parliament. The Bill has not yet been passed into law. Your local member of parliament can communicate your concerns to the government.

Comments (261) Add New Comment
Sounds like people who actually want to be Canadian won't be affected much.

Sorry but I support weeding out citizens of convenience.
Rating: -335
Thank God!!!
Keep these stupid eff'n foreigners out trying to change our country, weaken our jobs and economy and crippling our medical system.

To all my fellow Canadians out there, please support this bill. It is crucial to keeping Canada the way it is. I have lots of friends from different backgrounds, but they embrace Canada and love how it is. The ones coming over here and milking our system needs to STOP, period. It's ridiculous how we let this happen in the first place. I support this Bill %100. my 2 cents from a real Canadian.
Rating: -955
Miranda Nelson
"my 2 cents from a real Canadian."

Ooh, I didn't know the hallmark of a "real Canadian" was to be incredibly racist.
Rating: +646
Marion Vermeersch
Having had my citizenship stripped in 2003, I am greatly concerned about the process of stripping it without judicial process - exactly how I lost mine. My brother (a Canadian Naval veteran) and I lost ours with no notice, charges, hearing or forum for appeal. Now that is being codified.
The reason I lost mine was because I am the child of a Canadian soldier and his British War Bride. We have been here since early 1946, were told we would be citizens on arrival (I have Mom's documents) and have lived here all our lives, worked full time (farming, social service work, military), paid all taxes and never had any problem with citizenship until 2003. And we are not "citizens of convenience"!
It is now 10 years without citizenship and there are thousands of other Lost Canadians who lost it for equally bizarre reasons - but someone thought them concerning enough to take our citizenship. My group(children of war brides) may get ours back with this legislation, if we qualify, or maybe not. But there are four remaining groups and more people realizing they have a problem all the time.
Surely citizenship is too important to be left to the whims and prejudices of any individual politician. I believe we should be entitled to the same judicial process afforded any criminal.
Rating: +406
@Miranda Nelson
Go have a smoke and a drink, Miranda.

As doubleplusungood as what he said is, it is not racist. He said "foreigners", which I suspect means everyone not a native born Canadian. But if you want to go there, it is too bad that we can no longer have a public discussion of criteria like whether or not various people (e.g. certain islamic sects, chinese communists) can assimilate.
Rating: -343
I certainly am a strong supporter of this bill! My neighbours are from India, they have 12 people living in their house, none of which am speak English. If you wanna be a damn Canadian you should atleast learn the language! They should pass this bill and then do a mandatory language test for all ppl who have immigrated and boot out the ones who can't speak English or French!
Rating: -460
Miranda Nelson
@@Miranda Nelson I'm sorry, I can't hear you over all the racist nonsense you're spouting.
Rating: +181
@Miranda Nelson
You can say whatever you want, but it won't change anything you. It has nothing to do with being racist as i have plenty of friends from multiple backgrounds. You obviously are uneducated and lack any sense of what a real Canadian is. Your posts are as stupid as you.
Rating: -247
Meaghan Edwards
So I suppose that means we can deport Harper and all the other politicians who screwed us over, as I'm sure the majority didn't just pop out of Canadian soil!
Rating: +268
"none of "which" "AM" speak English": from your comment it seems like you're the first one who should be kicked out. Many immigrants are multilingual and they speak English better than you. You OTOH cannot enunciate your own and only language for communication without any stupid errors!

BTW, it should have been "None of them speaks English"!
Rating: +318
Sunny Day Real Estate
Bill C-24 sounds very anal. It's just another cash grab by the Harper Government.
Rating: +156
Chris Arnold
Meanwhile our First Nations peoples are still suffering (& being forgotten) the worst in this age of inequality, injustice, racism etc.
Rating: +208
I wonder if this applies at all to native born Canadians who apply for and obtain dual citizenship with another country, like I've just done.
Rating: +100
While I understand that the new bill is aimed to strengthen the integrity of Canadian citizenship, there are definitely some problems with the bill with regards to: "For Canadians with potential dual citizenship, an official may remove your citizenship for a criminal conviction in another country, even if the other country is undemocratic or lacks the rule of law." How is this even a good thing? In some countries, it's a crime to be homosexual, so if a citizen of said country moved to Canada to escape that prosecution, Canada would respond by... removing his rightfully gained citizenship via means like working or even asylum?

Also: "The power to remove your citizenship will be given to an official of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The decision may be made in writing with no opportunity for you to speak to the official." And I thought transparency was important in every good government.

I definitely agree with some of the policies under the bill, though, like the ability to speak properly-acceptable English (because it's important in society), but it shouldn't be a priority for those older than 50, it's hard to pick up a new language when you're older.
Rating: +252
Also new Canadian-
Of course in times of crisis we humans turn to cannibalism- Careful unless your comments are racist-While I do not condone those who enter under false pretenses, Canada has traditionally welcomed refugees and those seeking a better life for their families-
Rating: +112
Oh my God. This Is Canada People!! I can't believe there are so many racists who support the Harper Govt. This explains a lot.
Rating: +229
RUK @ Brandon
It would not work like that. There would be a balancing test showing that the crime overseas is has a Canadian equivalent with a serious penalty. It would not be being gay or having a satellite dish or evangelizing religion, which are terrible offenses in some countries but not here obviously.
Rating: -15
There is nothing racist about restricting citizenship---there is no suggestion that it would be restricted on the basis of _race_, is there? Words have meanings---I am starting to agree with some of my friends to the south that these terms are basically slanders used to defame people who don't agree with certain lefty political ideals. Is it "racist" to have anything less than open borders? None of this has to do with race at all---whether or not muslims or communists (who are incapable of maintaining the rule of law with respect for human rights in their own countries) make good citizens is a valid question to ask. Why is Canada importing people from countries with deplorable human rights records? Is the idea that a country is made up of something other than citizens, such that the citizens are immune from criticism for their failure to manufacture a state worth living in?
Rating: -44
Since Stevie is so hell bent on destroying Canada he can make his grand exit...and go live with the Kardashians - Kim can give him botox tips while Kourt pulls another baby out of her vag - and, as an added bonus, he can get his hair styled with Kris. All Canadians would benefit.
Rating: -25
Lookds good to me.
I see no downside to these changes. I guess that's because I'm a citizen of one country, period. And not a "Canadian" just when it's convenient for me.

The negative reactions to this law show you just how many new immigrants are out to abuse the system. If you truly want to contribute to Canadian society, rather than abuse the system, you would have no problem with these changes. You know you don't have much to stand on when you start playing the race card.

Rating: -197


Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.