Citizenship Pathway for Former Youth in Care

Summary#

This bill would give a clear path to Canadian citizenship for people who grew up in government care (like foster care) and were not citizens when they left care. It also stops deportation while their citizenship application is being decided and cancels any pending removal if they are approved.

• Creates a new way to get citizenship for former children in care who were living in Canada when they left care.
• Basic rules include: at least one year spent in care (can be over several periods), at least three years of physical presence in Canada before applying, and not living outside Canada for more than 10 years since turning 18.
• People who were returned to their parent when care ended are not eligible, unless that return happened within one year after they turned 18.
• Lets the Minister waive any of these rules on compassionate grounds after reviewing the person’s situation.
• Accepts an applicant’s written statement as proof they were in care, unless the Minister decides it is more likely than not untrue.
• Pauses any removal (deportation) while an eligible person’s citizenship application is reviewed; if citizenship is granted, the removal order is void.

What it means for you#

• Former children and youth in care (not Canadian citizens)

  • You could apply directly for citizenship, even if you never became a permanent resident.
  • You need at least three years of physical presence in Canada before applying.
  • Time in care must add up to at least one year, and you must have been living in Canada when you left care.
  • If you spent more than 10 years living outside Canada after turning 18, you would not qualify (unless the Minister waives this).
  • If you apply, the government cannot deport you until it makes a final decision. If approved, any existing removal order is cancelled.
  • The Minister can waive any rule for compassionate reasons based on your circumstances.

• Current youth in care

  • This creates a safety net when you age out of care if you are not yet a citizen.
  • Keeping records of your time in care will help, but your own written statement can count as proof unless the government shows otherwise.

• Social workers, guardians, and child-welfare agencies

  • You may help clients gather timelines of time in care and physical presence in Canada.
  • Expect requests for letters or records, though a client’s own statement may be enough unless questioned.

• People facing removal from Canada who were in care

  • If you qualify and apply under this new route, your removal is paused until a final decision.
  • If you are granted citizenship, any unexecuted removal order becomes void.

• Everyday life impacts of citizenship (for those approved)

  • Stable legal status with no need to renew immigration documents.
  • Right to vote, hold a Canadian passport, and access jobs that require citizenship.
  • Easier access to services that often require proof of citizenship.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Protects vulnerable young people who grew up in Canada under government care and treats the state as a responsible “parent.”
• Closes gaps that have led some former foster children to face deportation to countries they do not know.
• Sets clear, simple rules and allows compassionate waivers to avoid harsh outcomes.
• Accepting an applicant’s written statement reduces red tape when records are missing or hard to get.
• The three-year physical presence rule shows a real connection to Canada.
• Pausing removals prevents harm while the application is reviewed.

Opponents' View#

• The proof rule (accepting a written statement unless disproved) may be seen as too open to error or fraud, placing a burden on officials to challenge claims.
• Some may view this as granting citizenship without the usual permanent residency step or language/knowledge tests, raising fairness concerns compared to other immigrants.
• Could add to processing backlogs and require new coordination with provincial child-welfare agencies to confirm histories.
• Definitions of who was “in care” and “ordinarily resident” may be complex to apply in older cases with limited records.
• Pausing removals during applications could let people with weak claims remain longer, increasing enforcement and administrative costs.