{"id":194815,"date":"2018-08-28T14:15:02","date_gmt":"2018-08-28T18:15:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/irpp-policy-options.local\/issues\/previous-government-learned-birth-tourism\/"},"modified":"2025-04-14T04:38:54","modified_gmt":"2025-04-14T08:38:54","slug":"previous-government-learned-birth-tourism","status":"publish","type":"issues","link":"https:\/\/potestlaunch.irpp.org\/fr\/2018\/08\/previous-government-learned-birth-tourism\/","title":{"rendered":"What the previous government learned about birth tourism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ending \u201cbirth tourism\u201d and \u201cbirthright citizenship\u201d are not new policy objectives for the Conservative Party, which made the issue a priority<\/a> at its August 23-25 convention. The previous federal Conservative government under Stephen Harper made considerable efforts to crack down on the practice of non-Canadian women giving birth in Canada to obtain citizenship for their babies.<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0We need to send the message that Canadian citizenship isn\u2019t just some kind of an access key to the Canadian welfare state by cynically misrepresenting yourself,\u201d Immigration and Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney said in 2012<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But if Andrew Scheer\u2019s Conservatives form government, they would likely run into the same operational and cost challenges that ultimately caused the Harper government to backtrack, which is not to say this is an issue to be ignored.<\/p>\n

\u201cNot a priority\u201d for Conservative government<\/strong><\/p>\n

When announcing changes to the Citizenship Act <\/em>in 2014, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander lowered expectations<\/a> that his government would address birth tourism: \u201cWe have to make sure we get it right in a way that doesn\u2019t disrupt the vast majority of Canadians who are having their legitimate births in hospitals, but does detect and deter those cases where our generosity is being abused.\u201d<\/p>\n

Documents released in 2014<\/a> under the Access to Information Act<\/em> shed light on what happened behind the scenes when the government engaged in consultations. A \u201cCitizenship Reform Proposal<\/a>\u201d prepared for Kenney indicated that although birth tourism was deemed a priority, the federal government could not do much about it by itself, given provincial responsibility for birth registration.<\/p>\n

One of the options explored by the department was to issue citizenship proofs (certificates that prove Canadian citizenship) for all those born eligible for citizenship. But it was determined this would be costly for the federal government and would require Canadians to present two identification documents (both birth certificate and citizenship proof, rather than just a Canadian birth certificate) when trying to obtain services.<\/p>\n

Another option explored was to put citizenship information directly on birth certificates. (Currently this is unnecessary, because people with Canadian birth certificates are automatically considered citizens). But consultations with the provinces highlighted operational and cost considerations that made this approach unwieldy. New funding would be required for the provinces to handle the significant changes to their birth registration procedures and vital statistics agencies.<\/p>\n

Ontario, which accounted for 37 percent of Canadian births in 2016<\/a>, may have helped kill both proposed options. Provincial officials noted in a response to the federal consultations that there \u201cis not enough evidence to justify the effort and expense for such a system-wide change.\u201d<\/p>\n

Furthermore, officials could identify only about 500 cases of suspected birth tourism out of an annual average of some 360,000 live births in Canada, or 0.14 percent. The final recommendation from Citizenship and Immigration Canada to ministers nevertheless was to signal the intent to change birthright citizenship, allow time for consultations and return to cabinet with a request for funding.<\/p>\n

The released documents reveal that the government had intended to apply changes not only to birth tourists passing through Canada but also to all temporary residents such as workers, live-in caregivers, refugee claimants and international students. The minister never publicly admitted to this broader scope, and none of the background material provides estimated numbers of how many babies are born to temporary residents, apart from refugee claimants.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the consultations resulted only in more anecdotal evidence<\/a> around birth tourism. Minister Alexander subsequently admitted to Chinese Canadian media<\/a> that it was \u201cnot a priority\u201d given \u201cthe small number of offenders.\u201d<\/p>\n

Is birth tourism a real issue?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reducing fraud and abuse is legitimate and necessary, reflects sound management and preserves confidence among Canadians regarding the fairness and integrity of citizenship. Birth tourism clearly involves fraud or misrepresentation on the part of a parent.<\/p>\n

Since 2014, there continue to be many reports of birth tourism, mostly about Chinese visitors and about births in Richmond, BC, where about 20 percent of all births are to foreign nationals<\/a> (compared with 2 percent of all BC births). Anecdotal reports suggest that there is an increase in other cities in Canada<\/a>, but there are no hard numbers.<\/p>\n

Anecdotes help identify issues and should not be dismissed. While officials at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) made efforts to obtain concrete evidence, they did not appear to access provincial statistics on live births not covered by medicare, which would include birth tourists.<\/p>\n

Still, an impartial observer would conclude that there is currently no business case for changing Canada\u2019s birth policy, given the small numbers and the considerable operational and financial implications. As table 1 shows, births to foreign mothers are a minuscule number over the last 10 years, less than 0.1 percent of total births except in 2012, when the figure was abnormally high.<\/p>\n