The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024)

This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.

Sponsor

Marc Miller  Liberal

Status

Second reading (House), as of Dec. 12, 2024
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s adoption;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and
(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-71s:

C-71 (2018) Law An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms
C-71 (2015) Victims Rights in the Military Justice System Act
C-71 (2005) Law First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-71 seeks to amend the Citizenship Act to address issues raised by the Ontario Superior Court regarding the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent. The bill would grant citizenship to individuals born abroad to a Canadian parent who meets a "substantial connection" requirement, defined as residing in Canada for at least three cumulative years. It also aims to restore citizenship to "lost Canadians" affected by previous legislative provisions and streamline the process for adopted children born abroad to gain citizenship.

Liberal

  • Supports Citizenship Act amendments: The Liberal party supports Bill C-71, which amends the Citizenship Act to provide a clearer framework for citizenship by descent. The bill aims to restore and grant citizenship to lost Canadians, addressing issues raised in Parliament and the courts.
  • Correcting Conservative errors: The bill seeks to rectify the harmful first-generation limit introduced by the Harper Conservatives, which the Ontario Superior Court deemed unconstitutional. By removing this limit, the bill allows Canadian citizens born abroad to pass on their citizenship to their children, provided they demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, which is defined as living in Canada for a cumulative total of three years before the child's birth.
  • Promoting inclusivity and fairness: Bill C-71 aims to create a more inclusive and fair Citizenship Act by restoring citizenship to those wrongly excluded and establishing consistent rules for citizenship by descent. This includes addressing the status of descendants impacted by the first-generation limit and reducing differences between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and those born abroad to Canadian parents.
  • Addressing historical inequalities: The bill addresses historical inequalities, such as those affecting women's ability to confer citizenship before 1977. It acknowledges the rights of second-generation Canadians born abroad to obtain citizenship, including descendants of women who were previously unable to confer citizenship due to these inequalities.

Conservative

  • Opposes Bill C-71: The Conservative party opposes Bill C-71 because they believe it weakens the requirements for Canadian citizenship. They argue that the bill devalues citizenship, fails to ensure proper vetting, and does not address the existing backlog in the immigration system.
  • Substantive connection concerns: The Conservatives disagree with the substantial connection test proposed in Bill C-71. They believe that 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada is not a strong enough connection and proposed making the days consecutive. They also want to ensure a police record check is required.
  • Incompetence in immigration: The Conservatives are highly critical of the Liberal government's handling of the immigration system, citing significant backlogs, errors in application processing, and a failure to conduct proper security checks. They believe the government's incompetence is a major reason for opposing Bill C-71.
  • Canadians of convenience: The Conservatives express concern about creating "Canadians of convenience," individuals who hold Canadian citizenship but have minimal ties to the country. They argue that citizenship should be a serious commitment and that the bill weakens this commitment.

NDP

  • Supports the bill: The NDP supports Bill C-71, which aims to restore the constitutional rights of Canadians stripped by the Conservatives' Bill C-37 fifteen years ago.
  • Correcting Conservative errors: Bill C-37, while intended to fix issues with lost Canadians, inadvertently created a new class of lost Canadians by preventing first-generation Canadians born abroad from passing on their citizenship. This bill seeks to correct that.
  • Worked to get bill introduced: The NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship lobbied successive Liberal ministers to address the lost Canadians issue. After the Conservatives stalled Senator Martin's bill, the NDP approached the Minister of Immigration to bring forward a government bill.
  • Need for substantial connection: The NDP supports a substantial connections test, requiring parents born abroad to have resided in Canada for at least 1,095 days. Amendments put through in committee on Bill S-245 called for this test to extend to subsequent generations.

Bloc

  • Supports Bill C-71: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-71, as they believe it rectifies historical injustices related to Canadian citizenship. The bill aligns with their vision of citizenship, which emphasizes that once granted, it should not be taken away, except for national security reasons.
  • Correcting past oversights: The bill seeks to address the situation of "lost Canadians" affected by complex provisions in the Citizenship Act, particularly those who lost their citizenship due to requirements to apply for retention. It also responds to a court decision that found the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent unconstitutional.
  • Fairness and equality: Bloc members emphasize the importance of fairness and equality in citizenship laws, advocating for the recognition and protection of citizenship rights regardless of place of birth or residence. They also express concern over how past legislation has disproportionately affected women.
  • Hope for Quebec citizenship: Members note that easing Canadian citizenship requirements will help more people become citizens of an independent Quebec. They point out that the bill will give more Quebec citizens when Quebec becomes sovereign.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Canada being in compliance with international law and we are talking about the rights of people who deserve to be Canadian. Whether people are born abroad first generation or second generation, if they have a substantial connection to Canada they should be Canadian citizens.

The legislation that would have been debated back in 2009 far precedes my time in the House, but I mention it was legislation brought forward by the Conservatives that was done as an all-or-nothing measure.

Today we are correcting the major damage the Conservatives did to our citizenship legislation, and that is what is important.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is rather fascinating that the Liberal government is so slow to deal with this bill. Let us be clear, there are some very historic issues in this debate. People who lived through the war ended up in a situation where they had no citizenship. Some situations had to be straightened out even after death.

Why did it take a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court for the Liberals to finally take action?

The debate was held in the House in 2007. There have been successive governments since then, both Conservative and Liberal. Why did we have to wait so long to see some leadership to address normal situations for different Canadians?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a good answer as to why it took an Ontario Superior Court decision. However, I do know that it is high time these things were done.

The act is discriminatory, and the bill we are debating today will help improve the situation. We need to do more.

I hope that next time something needs to change, we will not wait to go to court and for judges to tell us to take action. We have to do the right thing, and we can do it here, as parliamentarians.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the shout-out that was given to Don Chapman. As I mentioned today and yesterday, I came to know Don Chapman when I worked for Andrew Telegdi, the former member of Parliament for Waterloo.

I also really appreciated the member's insights at countering this false narrative by the Conservatives regarding Bill C-37, who then are intentionally choosing to forget that former prime minister Stephen Harper basically gave an ultimatum to members to either take this step that lost Canadians were fighting for or none of it would happen. People like Don Chapman were leading the charge to ask for this step to at least be taken, because we were never going to get the Conservatives to truly be inclusive. They are the most uninclusive party possible.

My question to the member is in regard to the Ontario court ruling and the fact that this legislation would make Canadian citizenship more equal, especially when it comes to kids being adopted or who are born abroad. I would like to hear what the member thinks the benefits are of having legislation that would be constitutional. What kind of value does that have when it comes to Canadians and the pride we share?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, one thing Canadians are very proud of is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is something that we hold up. Any law that we pass that is unconstitutional I think is a strike right at the core of what it means to be Canadian. Part of that as well is being inclusive: respecting people, being a welcoming society. I think that is what this legislation helps move us closer toward. The reason we are here is because so many people have fought for decades and hundreds of years to bring us here, so I want to salute all the hard work by folks who have done that.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-71. This bill proposes to amend Canada's Citizenship Act and restore citizenship to those individuals who lost it due to previous unconstitutional legislative amendments.

I was compelled to participate in this debate after hearing from some of my constituents on this matter. However, I was struck by recent comments made by the Conservative member for Edmonton Manning. The member mentioned knocking on doors and talking to Canadians, saying that the changes put forward by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship today, changes that the courts have clearly indicated are needed, are just making more Canadians of convenience and that this would grant citizenship to tourists. I can tell members that I have heard the contrary from constituents.

It was just a few months ago while I was door-knocking in one of our growing neighbourhoods in Whitehorse, Whistle Bend, that I had a great conversation with a woman who had lived in Canada for years. Whitehorse is her home, and Canada is her home. However, she is one of our lost Canadians, and not having citizenship for her country matters greatly to her. She was glad to hear that this bill we are considering today is in the House and that it would bring her a step closer to being a citizen in a country that she had lived in for so long, that she loves and where she will spend the remainder of her days. I want to thank this constituent for sharing her story with me. She pressed us to help neighbours, colleagues and families who are lost Canadians. I thank her. I will do my part to support this bill, which will help lost Canadians. I also thank her for introducing me to her very cute dog, Pete.

Another constituent of mine has shared with me about a family member of theirs. This family member was born outside of Canada while their parents lived abroad working for a non-profit organization. Their dedication to service obviously ran in the family. This individual who was born abroad chose, as an adult decades later, to go into much similar work and now lives abroad working for a Canadian registered not-for-profit organization. This individual now has children while working abroad. A few years after that first child was born, they applied for their child's citizenship and passport, but they were denied based on the young child being from the second generation born outside of Canada.

My constituent's cousin asked why his children being punished with refusal of citizenship due to the service of their parents and grandparents in a not-for-profit organization. There are special considerations for members of the Canadian military but not for citizens in other areas of service.

Here is what I heard: “Not only does it hurt to know that my kids are not citizens, but it also calls into question how I end up feeling about my own Canadian citizenship. I feel very much like a second-class citizen as a result. Although I do not live in Canada, I do feel very much Canadian. I would love to be able to give that gift to my children.”

Families like those of my constituent, and the constituent I spoke with directly a while ago who is personally one of those lost Canadians, have been put into very difficult situations following the 2009 law passed by the last Conservative government. While the Conservative opposition filibustered a bill for 30 hours, a bill put forward by one of their Conservative senators, it is my hope that this new bill can bring some relief and justice to these families placed in such awkward and hurtful situations.

Many people around the world seek to come to Canada and become Canadian citizens. In my opinion, Canada is the best country in the world, and it is clear that it is the top choice for newcomers to begin the next chapter of their lives. Canada is a country that is welcoming, diverse and inclusive. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that we are proud to be Canadians, whether we were born here and raised here or came to this country, like me, going through the process of making it our home.

In 2009, Canada's Citizenship Act was amended to resolve this issue and simplify the rules around citizenship. The 2009 amendments repealed the requirement to act in order to retain citizenship, but at the same time, the Harper Conservatives fundamentally changed citizenship by descent by introducing a harmful and unconstitutional first-generation limit. Individuals born outside of Canada in the second generation or a subsequent generation were no longer able to inherit citizenship and could only become Canadians through the naturalization process, which is by applying and coming to Canada, becoming a permanent resident and passing our citizenship test. It is deeply offensive to be asking someone who is rightfully Canadian to immigrate to their own country.

The 2009 changes also ensured that anyone who was born after the 1977 legislation but who had not yet turned 28 when these changes took place was allowed to maintain their status and remain Canadian. At the same time, in 2009 and then again in 2015, the government introduced amendments to the Citizenship Act to restore citizenship to groups of people who lost citizenship or who never became citizens in the first place because of rules in the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, which we now recognize as outdated.

The vast majority of lost Canadians were remedied by legislative amendments in 2009 and 2015. Since 2009, nearly 20,000 individuals have come forward and been issued proof of Canadian citizenship related to these amendments to the Act. In December 2023, a court decision required that the Citizenship Act be revisited once more. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit on citizenship by descent was unconstitutional on both equality and mobility rights.

It was clear during the study at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-245 that there is still a cohort of people remaining who refer to themselves as lost Canadians. These are people, of course, who were born outside Canada in the second or subsequent generations and who lost their citizenship before 2009 because of the now repealed rules that required them to take steps to retain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday. This cohort of lost Canadians is limited to a group of people who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent between February 1977 and April 1981, did not take steps to retain their citizenship before turning 28, and were the second or later generation born outside the country.

Since Bill S-245 went through a number of changes and improvements using feedback from experts and those affected, it made sense to incorporate some of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's suggested changes into the new legislation. Today's legislation builds and improves on the work done in Bill S-245. It would restore and provide citizenship for groups impacted up to the date of the legislation coming into the force of law. It would also create new rules for citizenship by descent from the legislation's start date, ensuring a fair and inclusive Citizenship Act going forward.

This legislation offers the best solution for a welcoming and inclusive future. It would restore citizenship to those who might otherwise have lost it, and it would address the concerns from Parliament and the Ontario Superior Court with the Harper Conservatives' exclusionary legislative amendments from 2009.

I hope we can all continue to work together to quickly pass the legislation and provide a better regime for future generations of Canadians.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague about the actual unconstitutionality of the bill. The bill came from a ruling of unconstitutionality from the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, which is a lower court in Ontario. Six months ago, it did not advance to the Court of Appeal in Ontario.

Some judges may actually have some other, perhaps more experienced views on what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional that could come out before the bill lands on the floor of the House of Commons. Does the member think it is the government's job to take a lower court decision and bring it all the way to the House of Commons before it actually appeals that decision?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, of course, the judgment of a court can be considered at any level. In this case, a solid, thorough decision made by the Ontario court was accepted and agreed to by the government. That gives reasonable grounds to proceed with what is really correcting an injustice that dates back to the previous Conservative government.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was quite clear. He did a good job explaining that the government wanted to correct an injustice by ensuring that people who have wrongly lost their citizenship could get it back.

During the debates, at least yesterday's debate, the official opposition pointed out that this bill could have negative effects, specifically that it could create a birth tourism of sorts.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, yes, I heard the same speech. That is simply not true.

It is about helping those who lost their citizenship because of a decision made by the previous Conservative government. The bill simply seeks to correct an injustice that has been created. It does not open the door to other tourists. The government is really targeting certain people who have been forgotten and lost their citizenship because of that decision by the previous Conservative government.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his speech.

Obviously, the NDP agrees that this historic mistake needs to be corrected. In a democracy, there is nothing more precious than citizenship, which allows us to take part in the work of government. It is extremely serious that people could lose their citizenship because of a legislative error.

However, we are a bit concerned that, in the current wording of the bill, there is no implementation deadline for the act to come into force. I would like my colleague to reassure us that, once this bill is passed, it will come into force as quickly as possible.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his comments. I agree with him, and I, too, hope that this legislation will come into force as soon as possible.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a question from my colleague from Calgary Centre to ask the member for Yukon. We know the legislation is unconstitutional and not in compliance with Canada's international obligations. Does the member think it is reasonable to expect the Canadian government to take a position where it could deny access to citizenship for at least another five years, hoping to get a different ruling, and spend perhaps millions of dollars in the process of doing that?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question.

I think it is really very precise in that, if we are to achieve correcting this injustice, then we can stand on firm ground to accept the Ontario court's decision and proceed accordingly.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Finance.