Bill C-6 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 25, 2016
- Debated in principleMarch 21, 2016
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 17, 2016
- Passed the second chamberMay 2, 2017
- Became lawJune 18, 2017
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 25 February 2016, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship introduced Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-6 amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things, • remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security; • remove the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada; • reduce the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and provide that, in the calculation of the length of physical presence, the number of days during which the person was physically present in Canada before becoming a permanent resident may be taken into account; • limit the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Cana…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
57% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (4,481 words introduced, 3,912 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core aims of removing national-security revocation grounds, easing physical-presence rules, dropping the intent-to-reside requirement, and authorizing document seizure, but added an entirely new revocation procedure requiring court declarations in most cases plus fresh rules for minors and disabled applicants. Fifty-seven percent of the introduced text was altered or replaced between first reading and royal assent.
- Age limits for language and knowledge requirements were narrowed from under 65 to ages 18-54.
Before: “(d) if under 65 years of age at the date of his or her application, has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada;”
After: “(d) if 18 years of age or more but less than 55 years of age at the date of his or her application, has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada;”
- The old automatic revocation power for treason and terrorism offences was repealed and replaced by a court-declaration process.
Before: “(2) The Minister may revoke a person's citizenship if the person, before or after the coming into force of this subsection and while the person was a citizen, (a) was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code of treason”
After: “(1) Unless a person makes a request under paragraph 10(3.1)(b), the person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship may be revoked only if the Minister seeks a declaration, in an action that the Minister commences, that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud”
- New rules were added governing who may apply for a minor and requiring the Minister to accommodate disabled applicants.
After: “(3.1) For the purposes of this section, if an applicant for citizenship is a disabled person, the Minister shall take into consideration the measures that are reasonable to accommodate the needs of that person.”
- A new requirement was added that applications for minors must be made by a custodian and countersigned by the child if 14 or older.
After: “Application — minor (1.04) When the application referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is in respect of a minor, it must be (a) made by a person who has custody of the minor”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes objective numerical tests and age cut-offs with repeated subjective standards and ministerial discretion. This leaves several key powers open to argument over what facts meet the stated thresholds.
Open to argument
“reasonable grounds to believe that it was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used”
Uses a fact-specific belief standard without further definition, inviting disputes over sufficiency of evidence.“in his or her discretion, grant citizenship to any person to alleviate cases of statelessness or of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada”
Employs undefined evaluative phrases that lack objective criteria.“within any extended time that the Minister may allow for special reasons”
Leaves extension of statutory deadlines to an undefined ministerial judgment.“considerations respecting the person’s personal circumstances warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case”
Broad balancing test without measurable limits on what counts as relief-worthy.
Clear-cut
“been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during the five years immediately before the date of his or her application”
Supplies a fixed day count and fixed look-back period.“if 18 years of age or more but less than 55 years of age at the date of his or her application”
Uses clear numerical age boundaries.“within 60 days after the day on which the notice is sent”
States an exact calendar deadline.
Discretion. The Minister holds wide discretion over document seizure, time extensions, special grants of citizenship, and revocation decisions that turn on personal-circumstance balancing.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective phrases such as 'special and unusual hardship' and 'special relief' could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can readily contest whether 'reasonable grounds' or 'special reasons' were actually met on the facts of any given case.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.