Much of the discussion above conflates the acquisition of Canadian citizenship with the behavior of Canadian citizens. It is reminiscent of the red herring arguments regarding the intent-to-continue-to-reside-in-Canada provision added by Bill C-24.
Much of the confusion and distraction is indeed rooted in Conservative rhetoric; they never have tended to be particularly competent wordsmiths.
In any event, there is, of course, no formal definition or category of "Citizenship-of-Convenience." This is not a legal classification.
The term itself is more or less a rhetorical characterization (primarily employed by Harper-era Conservatives) intended to suggest insincere if not overtly exploitative intent in the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.
It is less about Canadian citizens going abroad to live (many tens of thousands live in the U.S., and tens of thousands more live in Mexico, and tens of thousands of others live in various countries throughout the world, and the CoC label is not about them) and more about those who immigrate to Canada and stay just long enough to qualify (or fake qualifying) for and obtain citizenship, with no intent to actually become in fact Canadian citizens.
That is, the term is about those who pursue acquisition of Canadian citizenship not for the purpose of being Canadian citizens, but for this or that advantage which comes from being a Canadian citizen. (A Canadian passport, and how much easier that makes international travel, being perhaps the most commonly sought-after advantage; with access to the U.S., especially more lucrative employment opportunities in the U.S., perhaps the second-most sought-after advantage.)
Thus, obviously those who are born a Canadian citizen are not among those who would be described as acquiring Canadian citizenship as a Citizenship-of-Convenience. They are Canadian citizens when born, with no intent to exploit the system (babies are always innocent, beautifully innocent). And this is true for those born in Canada, and for those otherwise born abroad but a Canadian citizen by descent.
In contrast, for example, consider a marriage-of-convenience: it is about why and how the couple entered into the marriage relationship. A marriage does not later, after it has been entered into, become a marriage-of-convenience (well, it might, the example of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton comes to mind). This characterization typically arises, at least in the context of Canadian immigration, regarding a marriage entered into not because the couple are in love and want to establish a life and perhaps a family together, but so that one partner might qualify to sponsor the other partner for Canadian Permanent Residence. Indeed, a marriage entered into for the purpose of facilitating a Foreign National to obtain status in Canada is defined to be a marriage-of-convenience.
Not particularly complicated.
The provision in Bill C-24 which introduced the Intent-to-continue-to-reside-in-Canada requirement was specifically intended to preclude (to the extent practical) granting citizenship to those who approached Canadian citizenship like earning a graduate degree: meet the minimum requirements, qualify, and then get the status, for the purpose of having the benefits of Canadian citizenship rather than actually becoming, in fact, a citizen of Canada.
The extent to which this is a real problem undermining the Canadian immigration system is debatable. Perhaps the number is large enough to actually undermine the system. Perhaps it is merely incidental. Obviously many Conservatives are of the former view, that the number is large and undermines the integrity and objectives of Canada's immigration system.
On the other hand, there are some who are simply offended by the prospect of the advantage being taken by those who are affluent in third world countries, those who are in a position to more easily obtain immigration to Canada and stay long enough to qualify for citizenship. A path largely unavailable to those not born to affluence in the third world. In the cosmic sense of things of course the advantage of the affluent is not fair. But then neither is the advantage enjoyed by those of us born in North America or Western Europe.
I understand why Canadian authorities are reluctant to facilitate the path to citizenship for those with no intent to actually become Canadian citizens. I doubt this is a serious problem so long as actual fraud is not being perpetrated (it was too easy, not all that long ago, for some to not even really live in Canada and on paper qualify for and obtain Canadian citizenship).
Whether or not the Senate will take up the debate about requiring an intent-to-continue-to-reside-in-Canada (which Bill C-6 proposes to remove) I cannot guess.
In the meantime is quite possible that Bill C-6 will not be stalled by the Senate and reach the Third Reading, even Royal Assent, before the summer recess. However, I would not count on that happening.
Overall, regarding the so-called Citizenship-of-Convenience, for those who are concerned there is a significant enough of a problem to warrant measures aimed at precluding or at least discouraging this, that is about the process of granting citizenship, about what is required (or should be required) in qualifying for and becoming a Naturalized citizen.
CoC has nothing to do with what Canadian citizens do AFTER they are a citizen. It is about why and how some have acquired Canadian citizenship.
Indeed, the Charter explicitly protects the right of citizens, no matter how citizenship was acquired, to leave Canada without being penalized. This does not, however, restrict the government from imposing residency requirements for certain government benefits. And indeed many benefits available to Canadians are specifically conditioned on meeting residency or presence requirements.
