[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-294817-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-294817-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","canadian-citizens-rights-council-submission-on-bill-s-245","Canadian Citizens Rights Council - Submission on Bill S-245","","Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration regarding Bill S-245. The brief explains the Canadian Citizens Rights Council’s position that citizenship by descent creates “lost Canadians,” and that while the bill is supported, it does not address ongoing and historical concerns. It analyzes scenarios of transmission, evaluates current law’s limits against mobility rights and family unity, critiques discretionary remedies as insufficient, and discusses constitutional issues through related court challenges.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/canadian-citizens-rights-council-submission-on-bill-s-245/294817/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/canadian-citizens-rights-council-submission-on-bill-s-245/294817.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Adam","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",19,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What problem does Bill S-245 aim to address in citizenship by descent?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Bill S-245 targets a gap that has produced “lost Canadians,” descendants who have lost or never been granted citizenship despite deep ties to Canada.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What concerns does the brief raise about current rules on citizenship by descent?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It describes concerns about people effectively “passing through,” while arguing that those born abroad but actively connected to Canada should have equal rights and mobility options during childbearing years.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why does the brief argue that current legal remedies may be insufficient?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It states that discretionary grants under section 5(4) do not include a dependent child option and are not a constitutional substitute, and it also raises ethical and practical limitations of relying on IRPA/IRPR for a guaranteed solution.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},294817,1789706451,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":124,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":143,"preview_page_count":4},1374404737137,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Submission to:  \nStanding Committee on Citizenship and Immigration  \nSixth Floor, 131 Queen Street  \nHouse of Commons  \nOttawa ON K1A 0A6  \nCanada  \nStudy of Bill S-245  \nBrief  \nIntroduction  \nThank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill S-245 . I write as the Executive Director of the Canadian Citizens Rights Council, which represents Canadians who have been disadvantaged by limitations on democratic rights, equality rights, multicultural rights, and mobility rights. I also present the perspective of a practitioner who has assisted clients with citizenship cases.  \nBill S-245 addresses one gap in citizenship by descent that has resulted in “lost Canadians” – our descendants who have lost or never been granted citizenship despite deep ties to Canada.  \nWe support Bill S-245 but believe that it does not go far enough to address ongoing and historical concerns.  \nIn this brief, we discuss:  \n􀁸 What concerns surround citizenship by descent  \n􀁸 How well current law addresses these concerns  \n􀁸 How other countries address the same concerns  \n􀁸 How we got here  \n􀁸 What Canadians have to say  \n􀁸 Recommendations based on this analysis  \nWhat Are the Concerns Around Citizenship by Descent? On the one hand, the concern around the transmission of citizenship by descent could be best described as a concern for people who are “just passing through”.  \nFor example, this concern applies in cases where individuals immigrate to Canada and become naturalized citizens with the express intent of immigrating to a third country. This can and does come into play because Canadians have an easier time than some other nationalities when they immigrate to certain countries.  \nA second scenario includes individuals who immigrate to Canada and become Canadian citizens with the desire of returning to their home country. In my practice, I have encountered this motivation when spousal immigration applications in other English-speaking countries are denied, and families are looking for a safe and culturally similar alternative.  \nA third scenario, one well documented in the press, includes individuals who come to Canada as tourists with the express intent of giving birth in Canada and then returning to their home country.  \nA fourth scenario is a situation where people with Canadian ancestors have been born abroad and lived abroad for generations without any active connection to Canada.  \nOn the other hand, the concern we represent is for those who are born abroad, are actively connected to Canada, and want equal rights and the option to be mobile during childbearing years.  \nAs citizens, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , section 6, we are guaranteed the right to leave and return to Canada. There is no time frame for this right. We can leave for as long as we wish, and unlike many other rights and freedoms, this section is not subject to the notwithstanding clause.  \nWe also have a moral and legal duty to care for our dependent children.  \nTo force Canadians to either give up our mobility rights or ignore our duties to our dependent children is unfair and unjust.  \nFinally, most people, regardless of their feelings on the concerns above, would prefer simple, understandable rules on citizenship.  \nHow Well Do We Meet Those Concerns Now?  \nIn response to concerns about people passing through, the Citizenship Act does not address the first three scenarios: 1) when a person immigrates to Canada and immediately emigrates to a third country; 2) when a person immigrates to Canada and returns to their home country as soon as possible; and 3) when a person visits Canada with the express interest of having a child and then returns immediately after the birth.  \nThe Citizenship Act does address the fourth scenario, limiting citizenship by descent in cases where descendants have been born abroad with no active connection to Canada for generations, but it does so at the expense of mobility rights and family unity.  \nSome point to the discretionary grant in s","cbCaiu5eR5n3U7Yl","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiu5eR5n3U7Yl","pdf",412572,"English","# Introduction\n# What Are the Concerns Around Citizenship by Descent?\n## Just passing through scenarios\n## Active connection and equal rights concerns\n# How Well Do We Meet Those Concerns Now?\n## Citizenship Act and gaps\n## Discretionary grants under section 5(4)\n## Limitations of IRPA/IRPR as a solution\n## Court challenge and constitutional issues","[{\"question\":\"What problem does Bill S-245 aim to address in citizenship by descent?\",\"answer\":\"Bill S-245 targets a gap that has produced “lost Canadians,” descendants who have lost or never been granted citizenship despite deep ties to Canada.\"},{\"question\":\"What concerns does the brief raise about current rules on citizenship by descent?\",\"answer\":\"It describes concerns about people effectively “passing through,” while arguing that those born abroad but actively connected to Canada should have equal rights and mobility options during childbearing years.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the brief argue that current legal remedies may be insufficient?\",\"answer\":\"It states that discretionary grants under section 5(4) do not include a dependent child option and are not a constitutional substitute, and it also raises ethical and practical limitations of relying on IRPA/IRPR for a guaranteed solution.\"}]","Canadian Citizens Rights Council - Submission on Bill S-245 | PDF",25]