An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024)

Sponsor

Marc Miller  Liberal

Status

Second reading (House), as of Dec. 12, 2024

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-71.

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 / 5:55 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, it has been clear since day one, since June 2023, that the Conservatives do not want to rectify the unconstitutional second-generation cut-off rule for lost Canadians and their families. They voted against provisions that would have rectified the unconstitutional amendments. They filibustered the bill for 30 hours at committee, and they stalled reading debate for the bill eight times. One thing that I know is that actions speak louder than words, and their actions have been really clear.

Why are the Conservatives misleading family members with their fake commitments?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that actions speak louder than words, so let us talk about actions here. Let us talk about how we are actually dealing with Canadians. Let us talk about the substantive test that made this ruling unconstitutional. That was the action of the Liberal government, which has been unable to deliver any efficiency in getting people through the immigration process.

A 50% failure rate because of mistakes is what makes this unconstitutional. That should be fixed forthwith. That would address the ruling of unconstitutionality that came with this.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned the difference in the tests of someone's connection to Canada. Could he offer a few comments on the value of citizenship—

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 5:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I apologize. The hon. member is not sitting in his seat.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, sometimes it is hard to notice. Standing Order 16 was a great standing order when it was suspended temporarily, so we could sit at any place and actually speak. That way, we could represent our constituents from anywhere in here. I think benches were a great solution.

The member for Calgary Centre heard, as I did during the debate on a previous private member's bill that dealt with the same question, when I was asked the following many times: How many Canadians would be affected by this? How many persons who are outside the country would be affected by it?

We, on the Conservative side, obviously agree with the adoption provisions. We want adopted children to be treated exactly the same way as Canadians born or naturalized in Canada. Could the member tell me if he knows how many Canadians would be affected by it? The minister could not answer the question.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, that is exactly one of the concerns we have. How many people are we dealing with this actual opening up of the immigration system in Canada? We have asked the question of the minister. We have asked the question of the department. Nobody knows. So there is—

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Thornhill.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6 p.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, “broken, broken, broken” has been the refrain this summer, a summer that showed Canadians once again that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government are just not worth the cost. I suspect that was the refrain the Liberals felt last night after a brutal loss in a safe riding in Montreal, where Canadians sent the Prime Minister yet another message to say that his plan is not working. Nowhere is that truer than in our immigration system and citizenship system.

Let us go back to 2015, the last time the Conservative government was in charge. We had a consensus in this country, and it was a multi-generational consensus that existed long before 2015. It was a system that worked for our economy, with inflation low and home prices half of what they are today, and a system that kept our nation safe from terrorist attacks and multinational criminals. It was a system that was truly the envy of the world, through which a person could come to this country, welcomed with open arms, in an effort to build a life better than the one they left behind.

However, in just nine short years, none of that is true today. Housing prices keep going up, reaching record highs in cities small and large everywhere. International students are living seven, 10 or 15 to a basement, or even resorting to homeless shelters and food banks. Opportunity keeps slipping away in the face of higher taxes, more expensive groceries and, yes, more and more people in the way. People who came here after being promised a new beginning are instead finding that their hard work does not pay off, and shockingly, they do not want to stay. In fact, they want to leave. It is all made worse by a government that cannot seem to exhibit a single ounce of competence and organization in immigration. That is why the consensus is broken.

The Liberals lost a million people and still cannot tell Canadians where they are. The Minister of Public Safety, just a couple of weeks ago, insisted that the system is working when a terrorist was given citizenship. The member for Kingston and the Islands, who I missed very much over the summer, claims that the Liberals are delivering results for Canadians. However, Canadians keep sending them the same message that this is simply not the case, because nobody with an ounce of common sense can step back and say that things in Canada are working as they should right now. If this is what the Liberals consider delivering results, then I would hate to see what not delivering results looks like. Even when they do not know where people are, the system still does not work and incompetence still reigns supreme.

The government gave citizenship to a terrorist who appeared in an ISIS snuff video and who somehow passed six security checks while plotting an attack in the country's biggest city. It gave a student visa to a guy planning a massacre of Jews on the anniversary of October 7, all while being exposed for not even checking his criminal record, the record check we do for any temporary resident. This was just in the past month. With each successive blow, the confidence among Canadians and our peers abroad in the integrity of our immigration system, in who we grant citizenship to and in the basic ability of government to get anything done is certainly in question.

No one of us should relish the fact that the Canadian immigration system seems to be falling apart right in front of us. I am a child of immigrants. There are many children of immigrants. There are many immigrants among us, many of our colleagues and constituents. We can testify to the power of a necessary immigration system, but a system that lacks integrity just does not work, and Canadians will not trust it. If not for immigration, my family would have never been able to experience the freedom of opportunity that this country gave us. If not for immigration, our communities would never benefit from the skills and expertise of countless doctors, nurses, engineers, tradespeople and the many people who built this country. If not for immigration, our country would never be strengthened by the values and pluralism of our newcomers, who are rooted in their culture, and what that provides for us.

What happened in less than a decade is nothing less than a tragedy, which is why it is even more disappointing to see the Liberal government plowing head-first into more misguided policies like this one rather than taking the time to fix what is wrong, further extending the reach of Canadian citizenship in the same ham-fisted and incompetent way that we have come to expect. The Liberals cannot even tell us how many people will be eligible under this piece of legislation. Surely, they can come up with a model.

The government cannot possibly believe it still has the confidence of anyone in this country when it simply says, “Trust us. We got this.” This bill threatens the integrity and security of the citizenship system. In December 2023, as we have said here in the House, the Ontario Superior Court declared that the first-generation cut-off rule for the Canadian Citizenship Act was unconstitutional. The Ontario Superior Court itself found a 50% error rate in the Liberal-run citizenship department, with abnormally long processing times and malpractice.

The NDP-Liberals took six months to respond to Bill C-71, showing a blatant lack of urgency, which they claim to have found today. This bill proposes to grant citizenship to individuals born abroad to at least one Canadian parent who has spent 1,095 days in Canada. We know that. This is without requiring that these days are consecutive and without provisions for checks in the Criminal Code. We know that other countries require more time and certainly more consecutive time. I do not think it is out of line to ask for a security check given what we have seen in just the last month in this country, with a public safety minister who says that the system is working as it should.

We see in this debate that the Liberal Party voted in favour of Bill C-37. That is the bill that was here prior to this one, which the Liberals seem to have conveniently forgotten about entirely today and certainly have forgotten that they supported not once, but twice. It was passed at first reading and second reading and there was unanimous consent to pass it. The Liberals voted in favour of the very ideas they are attacking in this bill today. This further erodes the lack of consensus I spoke about that exists in our system.

The Liberals are doubling down on citizenship by Zoom and pushing forward with the present path, even as evidence shows that we are not building enough homes, that we are not credentialing those who should be able to work here in their professions and that we are not doing our due diligence. That is clear. That is a message they should have heard over the summer and is a message they probably heard at the doors in Montreal last night.

Perhaps most egregious is giving people who created this mess even more responsibility in running the government. The guy who used to be the immigration minister, the guy responsible for losing those million people, is now being promoted to the guy who is supposed to build houses in this country. This is a guy who ignored advice from his own ministry and instead chose to pursue a blind political agenda. What happened? He was given a promotion. It is the guy under whose nose blossomed a corrupt and phony international student program alongside a foreign worker program called a “breeding ground” for modern-day slavery. This is the guy who is in large part responsible for the debate we are having today, as the Ontario Superior Court cited bureaucratic incompetence at the IRCC as a major reason for its decision. Spoiler alert, that minister could not run the system, and he cannot build homes either. That should not surprise anyone.

We need to fix this broken system. We need to fix it for those who want to come here and create a better life, for the promise of Canada, for the promise that if they come here and work hard, they can buy a home in a safe neighbourhood. They should be able to work in their profession to the scope of its practice and to the scope of their education, and they should know that when they come here.

What we have right now is a broken consensus in the public because the system does not work. That is because people who come here cannot achieve the dream that we have promised and cannot achieve the dream that so many of us and our constituents have benefited from. That is a shame.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, the Liberals seem to be implying that there is a rush to get this legislation passed. The ruling by the judge was at the end of December, and the government took until May 23 to table the bill. There were 19 sitting days before the June break and this bill never came up. In fact, we are only on the second day of debate.

I would like to hear from the member why there is a sudden need to rush this and why there is a sudden interest in it. It is as if because the government has suffered election loss after election loss, it is embarrassed by its own record.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, I suspect there is a little of that. I suspect there is a bit of chaos on the other side after losing two stronghold seats. The Liberals' record is being repudiated not only on immigration but on housing and everything else. They have probably heard about it.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, there is some unease in the House about the court's ruling. That is because the current Citizenship Act is unconstitutional. I would therefore like to ask my colleague the following question.

How do the Conservatives intend to reform the act if they keep opposing it and dragging out the proceedings? Why not go ahead and pass the amendments instead?

We can all agree that this does not exactly affect hundreds of millions of people, but rather a handful of people whose rights have been violated over the years. These are historic mistakes that can be corrected.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, we have no idea how many people this would affect, and that is the question we still have. Is it 1,000? Is it 10,000? Is it 100,000? Surely the government, which still has not been able to answer this very basic question about how many people we are talking about, can come up with a model based on how many people it knows are outside of the country and how many kids it thinks they have. How many people would be affected by this? That is the question. Security checks are certainly a question too, and there, the government does not have two legs to stand on right now.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I found that the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague made a lot of sense, unlike the Conservatives' comments. However, I would like to ask my colleague the following question.

If the Citizenship Act is unconstitutional, if the act allows people to lose their citizenship by accident or administrative error, if children are born stateless, why do the Conservatives want to drag their feet and not ensure that this problem is resolved quickly?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

Madam Speaker, we tried to make very reasonable amendments at committee, even supporting the reasonable amendments from the Liberals, but at every turn, those proposals were voted down. At every single turn, the government has failed to answer questions about how many people this bill would affect and whether there would be security clearance. There is a provision the minister has in the law right now to make exceptions and grant citizenship in some cases, as he sees fit, and until those questions can be answered, the minister can use that provision rather than bring this bill to the House of Commons without answers.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 17th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I find it fascinating that this is only the second day the bill has been debated. It was introduced just before Parliament rose for the summer. As my colleague mentioned, it was in response to a court decision a number of months prior to that.

The Liberals talk about not wanting a debate on this issue and accuse Conservatives of delaying it. What are her thoughts on that, when they have shown that they truly did not prioritize this in their overall legislative agenda?