MarylandNed

Well, if Canadian citizens who travel on foreign passports can't get an eTA, then effectively they will be forced to obtain a Canadian passport if they want to travel to Canada. As previously discussed, some other form of Canadian citizenship might be acceptable at a Canadian POE, but they would be at the mercy of a foreign airline worker when trying to board a flight bound for Canada. The exception will be those who hold US passports as they will be eTA-exempt.

Steve_

I don't think Canada can require it because of Article 6 of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees your right of entry. The govt. can say they prefer you to use a document, but they can't really require it.

The US is different, as the US constitution says very little about immigration and the courts have ruled that Congress and and the President have broad, sovereign, plenary power to do whatever they want essentially when it comes to immigration.

This I think is why Canada has taken a different approach on checking the ID of travellers, by requiring under the transport regs that the person's eligibility for entry be verified at airport check-in - which is outside the jurisdiction of Canada. Once you're in Canada, the legal situation at a POE is different.

The US has things like ESTA, but if you're a Canadian entering the US, they just have a list of approved documents, i.e. passport, EDL, FAST or NEXUS basically. And US citizens are also subject to an approved list of documents as well, although if you lose your passport or whatever, the port director has the discretion to waive the requirement. But technically as an American you're supposed to show up at a US POE with document X, in Canada as a Canadian you can show up at a POE with basically nothing, legally speaking. They just send you to secondary and ask you questions to identify you.

The trick is getting to the POE.

Which is why the bit about having to declare your intent to remain in Canada in the new Citizenship Act is unconstitutional.

FlyingDutchman6666

Article 6 of the charter says that a Canadian citizen has the right to enter and leave Canada. However, some Canadians have their passport taken away for alleged thought offences, and are effectively marooned inside their own country. This is not done through the courts, but just using powers that the govt can impose on every Canadian citizen, if they feel like doing it.

I am not making a judgement about the rights or wrongs of this. Just showing that article 6 is probably interpreted differently by the courts. Presumably, it merely prohibits the govt from introducing entry or exit visas for properly documented Canadian citizens. (And youd be surprised how many countries require this)

Former Lancastrian

Which part of the charter or Constitution Act says a Canadian citizen is entitled to or guaranteed to be issued with a passport?
A quick look at the Passport Order as found in this link shows that under section 9 and 10 that the Minister can refuse or revoke a passport.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/re.../si-81-86.html

A passport is a privilege not a right very much like a driving licence. The argument then becomes we are not stopping you from leaving the country but rather the other country is refusing you entry as you don't hold a valid travel document to enter.

Steve_

Which is what I was about to say, they can refuse a travel document but they can't stop you leaving. Not exactly the same thing but it's up to the other jurisdiction to stop you from entering.

Which in fact as I recall was part of the argument for introducing a power to strip citizenship from dual citizens convicted of certain terrorist offences.

Gozit

The Canadian government can refuse you a travel doc, but theoretically if you have no travel restrictions and another citizenship, could you not get a passport from there and leave anyway? Providing they haven't also refused your passport privileges? From the sounds of that you can.

JAJ

Really?

Nothing in the Charter gives permanent residents an entitlement to grant of Canadian citizenship. Especially if they have indicated an intention to abandon Canada, or have already done so.

Steve_

Yes, really.

The claim they require you to make is supposedly binding on you after you become a Canadian citizen and that's what makes it unconstitutional.

Having to declare your intent to remain in Canada after being granted citizenship in the 2014 Act clearly contravenes Article 6. You have a right to leave. The Canadian Bar Association pointed out this would create a "two-tier" citizenship, those who have to have intent and those who don't, which clearly is not permitted under the Charter.

Gozit

+1

MarylandNed

On the subject of "two tier" citizenship, they have already introduced that with the legislation that allows them to strip Canadian citizenship from dual nationals for terrorism. So now we have single-citizenship Canadians who are not affected by this legislation and dual-citizenship Canadians who are affected. It even applies to Canadians who were born in Canada if they just happen to have another citizenship by descent through a parent or grandparent. I hope this legislation will also be challenged in the courts.

Gozit

+1. I think its absurd that I as a person born in Canada can be stripped of my citizenship solely on the basis that I chose to get a second citizenship. Not that i plan on becoming a radical islamist though, but if a single citizenship canadian does it he doesnt have citizenship removed but if a dual citizen does it he gets it removed?

Steve_

Yes, the CBA did point that out in their submission also. And I pointed it out quite loudly down the phone to my MP as well. Don't try sending me a flyer saying 80% of Canadians support it again matey, how many of them have read the Act, I wonder.

bats

Well I suppose by getting citizenship of another country you're saying that being Canadian isn't good enough for you.

JAJ

Makes it unconstitutional? As opposed to might make it unconstitutional.

Observation. An opinion may be stated with great confidence but remains just that. An opinion. An regardless of what certain individuals may think, or want, the law has been passed by the Parliament of Canada and is constitutional unless and until the Supreme Court of Canada says otherwise.

Not before.

Further observation. The provision of the law that requires prospective Canadian citizens to intend to remain resident in Canada appears no less constitutional than requiring a (provincially selected) prospective permanent resident to intend to settle in the sponsoring province.

And intentions can and do change. The law as put in place does not require a new Canadian citizen to keep an intention to remain in Canada for one moment after becoming a Canadian citizen. It is very difficult to prove, retroactively, what someone's intentions were or were not at a particular time.

For this reason, similar provisions in Canada's peer nations are enforced sparingly, if at all. Assuming Canada follows suit, it is likely to be many years, if ever, before there is even the prospect of a challenge to the law.

MarylandNed

Many people born in Canada have another citizenship acquired at birth by descent through a parent or grandparent. Of course, they could renounce all other citizenships to protect themselves from being stripped of Canadian citizenship - but the same applies to terrorists as well. All around just a really bad law.