Bill S-245 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to permit certain persons who lost their Canadian citizenship to regain it.

Citizenship Act

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the speech I am giving today is probably the most anticipated one of the day.

As I was saying, I must have spoken to this bill or another version of it at least 45 times. For that reason, I really have no need of notes. There was Bill S-245 in the previous Parliament and Bill C-71, which was almost identical to Bill C-3.

That said, when we invited experts to appear before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when it was studying Bill C-3, the Parliamentary Budget Officer came and set the record straight. Basically, when we were presented with such a bill, we were told that it would affect about 800 to 1,000 people at most. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that, depending on the algorithms he used, it could affect between 115,000 and 300,000 people. That is a huge difference compared to what we were told before.

We did our job. We brought in experts and tried to understand how this bill should move forward, given the injustices done to the people known as “lost Canadians”. At the same time, we must do our work rigorously. When changes are made to the Citizenship Act like this, we need to be serious, and this is coming from a Quebec separatist. We were serious, we brought in experts and we worked very hard in committee. All members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration from all parties contributed to that effort. The Conservatives came up with amendments that were very well drafted. The majority of committee members voted in favour of these amendments.

Today, we find ourselves in a situation where the House has blatantly used a parliamentary tool, one that is not used very often, to undo everything that was done in committee. Every day, I hear the Liberals say that committee work is important, that amendments need to be proposed and that the parties will work together. That is exactly what we did. We worked together and we proposed amendments. We then voted on them, and the majority of committee members voted in favour of these amendments, but the procedure that was used in the House completely wiped out the work done in committee.

I find that hard to accept. Once again, a Bloc Québécois member is standing up to defend Canadian institutions. It is quite remarkable that we have reached this point. Once again, we respect democratic institutions. These democratic institutions exist to serve the people we represent. If, unfortunately, the government is once again undermining the work being done in these important forums, particularly the one I am talking about, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, what message does that send to the public? How can the public have confidence in democratic institutions if all the work being done is undermined?

By the way, committee work is not free. It costs the public money to run committees. We are talking about astronomical costs to run committee meetings. We did the work, but in the end, we find out that our work will not be respected.

The amendments that were proposed were very interesting. That is why we supported them. Take, for example, the idea of 1,095 days to establish a substantial connection with Canada, which the government decided to include in the bill as a way to demonstrate that a person has strong ties to Canada. The individual must have spent 1,095 days in Canada over an unspecified period of time. Those 1,095 days are not a new concept; they come from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Under that act, if a permanent resident wants to become a naturalized Canadian citizen, they must have spent 1,095 days in Canada over a five-year period. That is the variable. The government is using the 1,095 days in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a reference, but it is removing one of the two variables, namely the five-year period. In Bill C-3, the 1,095 days could occur over an indefinite period. A person could be 65 years old, have spent 1,095 days in the country intermittently, not over a specific period, and still be considered to have a substantial connection to Canada.

We felt that this did not make sense. The Conservatives proposed an amendment to add the five-year period as a variable and we supported it.

The astounding thing is that today, with the help of independent MPs here in the House, the Liberals undid what we accomplished in committee, even though it made a lot of sense. Our work was based on provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We also thought people should have to be proficient in one of the two official languages in order to obtain Canadian citizenship. I am well aware that there is a former prime minister out there who wanted a postnational state, but the idea that people do not need to speak either English or French fluently to become Canadian citizens is quite bizarre. It is just odd. The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois worked very hard together to, again, take the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a reference and slip this criterion into Bill C‑3. These amendments were adopted in committee in a very reasonable and responsible manner. Once again, the government has undone what we accomplished. It is unacceptable to me when the government does not respect an institution such as a parliamentary committee, particularly when it lectures us day after day about the need to work together, to work in committee. It tells us that it will listen to the experts and encourages us to propose amendments.

Bill C‑3 was one of the first bills introduced in this Parliament. As a matter of fact, it was the third one, hence the bill number. It is one of the first bills to come up for third reading in the House of Commons. However, everything that was done before has been gutted. There is no respect for the work of the committee. This is unacceptable. It tells us a bit about the Liberals' view of democracy and democratic institutions on Parliament Hill. That is very unfortunate. I believe this could set a dangerous precedent and lead us down a slippery slope. What is the point of committee work if this is the outcome?

We would have voted in favour of this bill if the government and independent members had respected the committee's work, but the outcome shows that nothing happened. We have a bill before us, but it is as if no work was done in the committee. All the work that was done has been thrown out. The Bloc Québecois will not be able to vote in favour of this bill in its present form.

I presume the government has struck a deal with the NDP, but this is an unfortunate situation. I think it is appalling. It shows a lack of respect, not for parliamentarians, and not only for democratic institutions, but for the people we represent, who expect us to work in democratic institutions the right way. Above all, they expect us to do our work the way these institutions were designed to function.

That concludes what is probably my 44th speech on this topic.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.

It is unbelievable that I am here before the House, just before question period and before the budget is tabled, to once again talk about Bill C‑3. I would remind members that we also discussed Bill S‑245 and Bill C‑71 in a previous Parliament. I have probably given 25 speeches on exactly this issue, which is discussed in Bill C‑3 in particular. As my Conservative colleague just said, we did a thorough and responsible job in committee. We did our job, we listened to the experts and we even heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer in committee.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2025, following my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who explained the issue well.

This topic interests me because certain places in Quebec have been identified as settlement areas, and Granby is one of them. These are communities located in regions outside major urban centres. The Quebec department is asking people to settle there and discover Quebec culture, which is who we are. Granby is included in these settlement areas, and that is a tremendous asset. One organization in Granby is working very hard to teach immigrants French so that they can take their place in Granby's regional community. It is called SERY.

I would like to salute the members of that organization this morning as they prepare to present their intercultural recital on Saturday, which is returning after a forced hiatus because of the pandemic. This performance is being presented as part of Quebec's week of intercultural encounters, which is being held this week, from November 3 to 9, with the theme “Quebec in common”. The goal is to really emphasize encounters and exchanges between Quebeckers of all origins. This is extremely important, and I will be stopping by to say hello to everyone at Verbe Divin Secondary School on Saturday and to take in the cultural richness, beauty and various forms of artistic expression.

That said, today we are talking about Bill C-3, which corrects a historical injustice in the Citizenship Act in response to a December 2023 ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which found that the first-generation limit on citizenship is unconstitutional. This limit was put in place by the Conservatives in 2009. Now we are in a bit of a bind, because if we do not take action, the court's ruling is going to apply instead of Bill C‑3. Could that open the door even wider? We do not know, but we want to know. That is why we are debating Bill C‑3 in the House today.

We also know that this issue has been dragging on for years. Bill C-71 and Bill S-245 were introduced to address citizenship. An election was called and the bill died on the Order Paper. Now we have to hurry due to this court ruling and the fact that this matter has unfortunately been dragging on for some time.

The goal is to make the right to citizenship fair, consistent and inclusive. It is true that the current law creates some bizarre situations. I am going to begin by talking about the Bloc Québécois's position and the amendments that were proposed in committee. Next, I will talk about what the bill fixes, and I will close with a few statistics.

For now, the Bloc Québécois is reserving judgment. We are going to wait and see how things play out. We know there are negotiations going on. We are a bit disappointed about what happened, and we are asking that the work done at committee be respected. The amendments were rejected at report stage. We opposed the amendments from the government, which teamed up with the NDP. Those amendments sought to eliminate the requirement that the 1,095 days of residence take place within a five-year period, abolish the tests for adult applicants, and remove the obligation to report to Parliament. These are important matters. They are not trivial.

In contrast, we did support the amendments presented at committee that called for a residence requirement of 1,095 days in Canada during the five years preceding the child's birth. We also supported the amendment that established a language test, a citizenship knowledge test and a security assessment for applicants 18 years of age and over. The Conservative members and my Bloc Québécois colleague, who rose to speak just before I did, told us in their speeches how important these amendments are. They deal with language, culture and citizenship knowledge. They also deal with the security risk people might pose. That is essential. The same requirements apply to other naturalized citizens. They are requirements, and we want to have the same rules for everyone. In a nutshell, that is what we are asking for.

We also want accountability through an annual report to Parliament on the number of citizenships that are granted. We have the right to get a report and to know where we stand. We want these measures to ensure that applicants have a real connection to Canada, as required by the court. We need to ensure that this is the case. We are concerned that the new amendments proposed by the NDP and the Liberals will water down this bill and undermine the essential amendments that we worked on in committee with the Conservatives.

This bill also seeks to correct absurd situations, as I mentioned earlier, where a child born abroad to Canadian parents cannot obtain citizenship. Take the case of Jean-François as an example. His father was born abroad, and he himself was born abroad while his father was completing his doctorate in the United States. Even though he returned to Quebec when he was three months old, and even though he grew up here and spent his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was not automatically granted citizenship.

The spark that ignited this whole debate came from Don Chapman, a former airline pilot who worked for United Airlines and whose story attracted public attention. Chapman discovered that his citizenship had been revoked when his father emigrated to the United States. His astute demonstration that this problem affected many Canadians, such as Roméo Dallaire, without them even knowing it, forced Parliament to take serious action on this issue.

The bill aims to remedy the status of the following individuals: Canadian women who lost their citizenship before 1947 upon marrying a non-Canadian; individuals born between 1977 and 1981 who lost their citizenship because they did not renew it by age 28; and children adopted abroad whose Canadian parent died before the adoption. It would fix situations such as these.

I will conclude my speech by presenting some data. We will also assess the scope of this bill. My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères mentioned that this reform would affect 150,000 people over five years. The estimated cost is $20.8 million, which is not insignificant. We know that 91.2% of the Canadian population already has citizenship, that 50.6% are women, and that gender equity with regard to citizenship remains essential.

As well, 19.5% of the population is 65 or older. Many seniors have been affected by the old laws and exclusions. As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I have heard about some cases that deeply concern me. All of this has reduced naturalization rates, which were 57.5% for immigrants admitted between 2011 and 2015, down from 68.5% between 2006 and 2010. New citizens tend to integrate well: 93% are filing taxes in Canada 10 years after landing.

In Quebec, the percentage of first-generation individuals born outside of Canada has grown among young people, climbing from 9% to 18% in the 15- to 24-year-old age group. Among members of the second generation, it increased from 11% to 16% for that age group, according to Statistics Québec. In 2021, Statistics Quebec also reported that immigrant women accounted for 14.9% of all women in Quebec, excluding non-permanent residents.

As I was saying, a significant number of seniors could be affected by the old citizenship rules, including the parents and grandparents of the individuals concerned.

Staying with Quebec, it is estimated that nearly 10% of Quebeckers have at least one second-generation foreign-born parent, and nearly 10% of Quebeckers are second-generation immigrants, according to New Canadian Media.

This is a serious topic. In conclusion, I would like to say that, aside from everything the bill could change, this situation shows that the Liberals are not mindful of the minority mandate they received for a third time in the last election, nor do they respect the work done in committee. The committee heard from witnesses, and there were discussions and negotiations among MPs. The Conservatives and the Bloc worked hard on amendments to fix the flaws in this bill, but all that work was ultimately undone by the NDP and the Liberals. What a blatant lack of respect.

I want to acknowledge the work my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean did on this file. This is a minority government, and it should take that into account. Passing laws on closure and disregarding the work done in committee should not happen in this democratic institution.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, for generations, Canadian citizenship has been a symbol of pride, opportunity and belonging. It has been the envy of the world, a beacon of hope for those seeking freedom, safety and a better life. Countries around the globe have looked to Canada as a model for how to build a fair, compassionate and principled immigration system, but today, that reputation is destroyed. After a decade of Liberal government, Canadians are rightly concerned, not because of the newcomers who arrive here with hope in their hearts and a desire to contribute, but because of a government that has mismanaged our immigration system, neglected its responsibilities and introduced policies that dilute the very value of Canadian citizenship.

In Kitchener Centre, residents are deeply frustrated by the federal government's failure to manage the international student program. What was once a pathway to great Canadian education has become a cautionary tale of neglect and mismanagement. Let us be clear. This failure is not the fault of our citizens or the students who came here in good faith. It is the government that failed to protect the integrity of our education system, and now our community is left to deal with the consequences.

Many first- and second-generation immigrants in Kitchener have shared with me at their doors their deep frustration with the federal government's failed immigration policies. These are individuals and families who came to Canada with hope, worked hard, followed the rules and built lives rooted in contribution and community. Now they feel their reputations are being unfairly tarnished by a government that allowed this system to spiral into dysfunction. They deserve better than to be lumped in with the consequences of Liberal mismanagement. They deserve a government that honours their commitment and protects the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

Let me be clear that this is not the fault of immigrants. It is the fault of a government that has broken the system. While the Liberals broke it, Conservatives will fix it.

Canadians were rightly outraged to learn that a convicted child sex offender listed on the national sex offender registry was granted a Canadian visitor visa despite his criminal history. This individual, who had sexually abused his underage niece, was allowed into our country under the watch of the current federal government.

This is not just a bureaucratic oversight; it is a shocking failure of basic due diligence. A simple background check would have prevented this, yet the government chooses to rely on the self-disclosure of applicants rather than proactively protecting Canadians. This case has shaken public trust, further highlighting how broken our immigration system has become under this leadership. Canadians deserve a government that puts public safety first, not one that allows dangerous individuals to slip through the cracks.

Under the current public safety minister's watch, 599 foreign criminals slated for deportation have gone missing, including 431 convicted of serious crimes such as sexual assault and violent offences. These individuals were under deportation orders but have vanished from the system, exposing alarming gaps in Canada's immigration enforcement and border security.

This is not just a failure of policy; it is a failure of leadership. Canadians deserve to know that those who pose a threat to public safety are being tracked, detained and deported. lnstead, we are seeing a system where dangerous individuals disappear into our communities, unchecked and unaccounted for. This is yet another example of how the Liberal government has lost control of our immigration system, and it is Canadians who are paying the price.

Bill C-3 is just the latest example of the Liberals' misguided approach. lt is a recycled version of Bill C- 71, with portions hijacked from Senator Yonah Martin's thoughtful and targeted Bill S-245. However, instead of building on that work with care and clarity, the Liberals have chosen to abolish the first-generation limit, a measure introduced by former prime minister Stephen Harper in 2009 to prevent the rise of Canadians of convenience. That measure was never about exclusion. It was about ensuring that Canadian citizenship meant something, that it was earned, not inherited, without connection and that it reflected a real and meaningful bond with our country.

Bill C-3 would replace the first-generation limit with a weak substantial connection test: just 1,095 non-consecutive days spent in Canada at any point in a parent's life. There would be no requirement for a criminal background check and no meaningful demonstration of a commitment to Canada.

Let me put that into perspective. Under this bill, a child born abroad could gain Canadian citizenship even if their parent spent just a few months here decades ago. That is not a substantial connection. It is not how we build a strong and united country.

Conservatives believe in restoring citizenship to lost Canadians, those who were unfairly excluded by outdated laws. We support equal treatment for adopted children, ensuring that all families are treated with dignity and fairness. However, we cannot support a bill that goes far beyond these necessary corrections and opens the door to unlimited chain migration, undermining our national identity and creating a two-tier immigration system.

Let us talk about fairness. Immigrants who come to Canada and work hard to earn their citizenship must meet strict residency requirements, pass language and citizenship tests and demonstrate their commitment to Canadian society. They contribute to our communities, our economy and our shared future.

Under Bill C-3, individuals who have never lived here could gain citizenship simply because a parent once did decades ago. That is not fair. It sends the wrong message to newcomers who are doing everything right. It tells them that their hard work is worth less than a technicality.

Residents in Kitchener Centre are frustrated. They see their public services, health care, pensions and housing, everything, under strain. They worry that a surge of new citizens living abroad who have never contributed to Canada will stretch those services every further. That is why Conservatives took action.

At the immigration committee, we worked constructively to amend Bill C-3 and bring common sense back to our citizenship laws. We introduced amendments to ensure prospective citizens by descent or adoption would go through steps similar to those of naturalized citizens.

We have added a residency requirement. Parents would have to demonstrate a consecutive physical presence in Canada equal to that required of naturalized citizens. On language proficiency, they would have to speak English or French unless they are under 18 or over 54. There would be a citizenship test. They would have to understand Canada's history, values and responsibilities. On security screening, they would have to undergo a national security assessment. On transparency, the minister would have to report annually to Parliament on citizenships granted under Bill C-3, which would include country of residence and any exemptions to security screening.

These amendments are not about exclusion; they are about preserving the integrity of Canadian citizenship. They are about ensuring that every new citizen, whether born here or abroad, shares a real connection to Canada and understands what it means to be Canadian.

We must empower newcomers to place the same value on Canadian citizenship that generations before them have held. We must reassure Canadians there is a better way, a way that is fair, principled and rooted in our shared values.

Canadian citizenship is not just a passport; it is a promise, a commitment and a privilege earned through dedication, contribution and connection. Let us protect that promise, let us stand up for fairness and let us fix what the Liberals have broken.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill C-3. As is my habit, I will talk about what I like in the bill, and then I will talk about what I do not like in the bill.

Let us start with what I like. According to the first part of the bill, there would be a restoration of citizenship to people who lost it due to non-application. People born between February 15, 1977 and April 16, 1981, when they turned 28, were supposed to reapply for their citizenship. If they did not apply, they lost it. They do not think that is right.

Senator Yonah Martin brought Bill S-245 to address this specific issue. Unfortunately, it did not get through the House before another election was called, so I am glad to see that provision come back here. The people in question are in their golden years at this point. It is better late than never, but that is a part of the bill that I appreciate.

The second part of the bill that I appreciate is the provision for adopted children. Currently they have to go through a permanent residency process, which can take three years. Under the provision in Bill C-3, they would be treated as Canadian-born citizens for the purpose of passing on citizenship. I think that is a good thing for families. There is no reason, when children who are going to be part of our Canadian context are adopted, that they would not get their citizenship, so I think that is a good provision.

One of the things about the bill is that there would not be the connection test that the courts prescribed. I have heard the Liberals, through this debate, talk about how they have a deadline from the courts, so that they have to do something. They chose not to appeal the lower-court decision. Getting the legislation on time without the connection test that the court demanded would not fix it either.

I think it is important that people who get Canadian citizenship fall into categories; They are born here, or they are descendants of a Canadian citizen, or they are permanent residents who apply for and receive citizenship, or they are people who have a connection and go through the process. There should not be a two-tiered process; the rules to become a citizen should be the same.

If someone is going to be a Canadian citizen, I think it has to mean something. We think about the value of citizenship, and it is really about participating in our democracy, experiencing our wonderful country, helping build our communities, paying taxes and using our services so we understand what the state of our nation is. All these things are part of being a Canadian citizen and having that value.

I worry that if people are away from the country for a long period of time, they are going to lose that connectedness. If they have never lived here, they really do not have that connectedness at all. That is a concern to me, especially when we think about one of the unintended consequences of the bill. The bill would grant citizenship to people whose parents spent 1,095 days in Canada over, as it now stands, an unspecified amount of time. They may never have lived here.

Such people would be able to vote in our country. The way that voters are normally registered is that they have to have a Canadian address so we can figure out what riding they are in. That is how Elections Canada does it. We would now have 150,000 people who could choose where they want their vote to count. I really find that to be an undermining of our democracy in terms of an interference factor with which it would be possible to game the system, for example. That needs to be addressed, and it is not addressed in Bill C-3 at all.

Bill C-3 went to committee, where there were some thoughtful amendments that were brought into place, really, to align the citizenship process in Bill C-3 with what other people who are becoming Canadian citizens normally go through. The amendments would apply both to descendants and to people who come by adoption. They would need to be able to speak one of the official languages at least. That makes sense to me, especially if they are going to receive services here and interact with the government, which publishes its notifications in both official languages.

They would also have to have a security check, the same security check that others are supposed to go through. We can see that, in an increasingly violent world, it is more important than ever to make sure we are not allowing criminals and terrorists into the country. The only way to do that is to make sure there is a security check and it is thorough. Again, this makes sense.

There is a provision that was amended at committee to say it should not be just 1,095 days that parents lived here over any number of decades. It should be a concentrated period of time so they have a commitment to Canada. The suggestion was that it be five years. I think that is a reasonable limit. It reflects some of the previous legislation we have seen. To me, that is a good-sense amendment as well.

Then there is the citizenship test. This comes close to the connectedness the court was looking for. People who are coming here to be Canadian citizens would have to learn something about the history of Canada and the cultural norms in Canada, and take and pass a test. That is also a reasonable amendment.

After doing all this great work at committee, the NDP has now introduced amendments that would essentially reverse all that good work, and the Liberals are going to support them to basically wipe it out. For the last 10 years, I have heard the Liberals stand up and talk about how they value the work done at committee and respect the independence of the committee process, but here they are totally turning things around.

Let us keep in mind that 98% of the Canadian people did not elect the NDP to provide our rules and legislation. It got 2% representation, so it should not be able to overturn the rest of the House. First of all, that is not representative of what the Canadian people want, but also, the NDP is trying to take out all the amendments. We would have a two-tier system where some people coming here to get citizenship have many requirements, and others just automatically get it.

The other problematic thing for me is knowing that this could happen in perpetuity. If the children who get citizenship show up during their lifetime for 1,095 days, they can pass citizenship on to their children. We do not know how many people are involved in this or how much in resources it is going to take to do it. We already know that the immigration system is backed up, and it is taking three years or more to process people's applications. Putting an extra burden on the immigration department is not a good idea, and I really think it disrespects and undervalues Canadian citizenship.

The coalition we saw between the NDP and the Liberals to force their will on all Canadians in the last Parliament is popping up again, and they are going to team up together to put in a bad bill instead of doing the right thing and aligning the process to be fair to all.

Certainly, I love to see immigrants come to the country. They have helped build the country. The member who spoke before me talked about her heritage. My heritage is English, French, Irish and Scottish. I am a little tall, so there may be Viking in there somewhere. These different cultures have all come together, and we see more and more of that. This was always about the multiculturalism of Canada. The freedom we had here and the way everybody could get along is what made Canada great. A two-tiered system would undercut that and divide us, which is what the Liberals have been doing for the last 10 years.

With that, I will just summarize and say that there are some good elements in the bill, but I recommend the government send it back to committee, or keep the amendments the committee passed if it really respects the work of committees.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I spoke to Bill C‑3, a reiteration of Bill C‑71, and Senate Bill S‑245, intended to correct a historic injustice by granting citizenship to Canadians whose files had fallen through the cracks.

I talked about children, born abroad to Canadian parents, who had lost their citizenship because of changes in federal rules or based on other conditions that seemed to me difficult to justify at the time. Basically, what all these bills tell us is that we need to restore citizenship to everyone who lost their status because of exceedingly complex and often unfair provisions of previous Canadian legislation.

In fact, Bill C‑3 incorporates all of the amendments proposed to Bill C‑71, which sought to correct injustice and errors in the Citizenship Act.

The bill responds to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling declaring that the first-generation limit on citizenship applicable to the children of Canadians born abroad is unconstitutional. The government then had six months to amend the law. Bill C‑3 was introduced as a safeguard, because Bill S‑245 and even Bill C‑71 unfortunately could not proceed for partisan reasons.

On this point, I would like to reiterate the following. Despite my occasional differences of opinion with my colleagues from other parties in the House, as we all know, I am not in the habit of engaging in partisanship. I even think that being non-partisan often allows me to do my job well for the people of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, who, since 2019, have allowed me to proudly represent them in the House of Commons. In that sense, and without wanting to be partisan, I still believe that we must at least assess the overall impact of bills such as this on the public.

Let us come back to the matter at hand today. Although some believed it was 500 to 600, IRCC's initial estimates at the time were that between 100 and 200 people had still not regained their citizenship.

In committee, it quickly became apparent that the number of Canadians stripped of their citizenship was difficult to assess. Various publications, including that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, came to the same conclusion. According to the Minister of Immigration, who was there in committee, it would be impossible—that was the word she used—to estimate the number.

Times like these demonstrate the importance of the parliamentary work done in House of Commons committees. As parliamentarians, we must be thorough and mindful of the impact our decisions have. The Bloc Québécois has always worked that way, and it will continue to do so.

Before continuing, I would like to confirm that, as was the case with Bills C‑71 and S‑245, the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑3 as amended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. My colleagues and I have done work on this bill that may have been perceived as harsh, but after gathering some information and analyzing the facts, it was quite obviously necessary.

In particular, the bill was amended in committee to ensure that the requirements for passing on citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad are identical to the requirements for naturalized citizens. Bill C‑3 calls for citizenship to be granted to children as long as one of the parents spends a minimum of 1,095 days in Canada over an indefinite period before the child's birth.

To ensure consistency across federal laws, we supported an amendment calling for this 1,095-day requirement to be met within a five-year period, as is the case for someone seeking citizenship through the immigration process.

We also supported an amendment that will require people who are over 18 at the time of their citizenship application to comply with additional requirements. They would have to meet the same requirements as those imposed on naturalized citizens, namely, to pass a language test, to pass a citizenship knowledge test and to undergo a security assessment.

Furthermore, Bill C-3 will now hold the federal government accountable to some degree. There can never be too much accountability where the federal government is concerned. We will require the tabling of a report containing annual statistics on the number of citizenships granted under this legislation, which seems perfectly normal and understandable to me.

We sincerely believe that these amendments address the court's ruling that we determine what is meant by a real connection to Canada. Since everyone should be considered equal before the law, replicating the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad establishes that the same rules apply to everyone.

The amendments brought forward by the government at this stage are problematic. We know for a fact that they aim to restore amended clauses to their original form, except for the one about the three requirements, in other words, the security, language and citizenship test for persons between 18 and 55 years of age.

In addition, one insidious aim of the amendments is to overturn the careful work done by a majority of committee members to achieve this outcome. In that respect, the Bloc Québécois demands respect for the work of committee members. It blows me away to think that the House needs to be told to respect the work of committee members. For that reason, we are going to oppose the amendments proposed by the government at report stage.

As the House knows, I was in favour of Bills S‑245 and C‑71. I am obviously in favour of quickly passing Bill C‑3 to meet the court's requirements. However, that does not mean I am in favour of shoddy work. I am talking about swift but effective adoption. I am talking about adoption that is the result of rigorous work that has allowed the bill to follow the usual steps, including committee review and the tabling of a report in the House. I am talking about adoption that respects the decision of the majority of members of the House and the important work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I find it a shame when I read amendments like the ones proposed today. I believe they reflect a lack of consideration for the work that is done at committee. As parliamentarians, we need to tackle the issues that matter most to our constituents with a strong sense of duty and without partisanship. At the Bloc Québécois, that is what we always do.

The Chair knows better than anyone in the House that when we step into this place, our goal is always to work for our constituents, not for anyone else. We in the Bloc Québécois are here for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to our electoral ambitions. People know that. They saw the work we did in committee on this bill. They heard the evasive answers from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration officials when we asked them questions in committee.

I sincerely hope that the efforts and energy that my colleagues and I have put into studying this bill will be given due consideration and respect. I want to reiterate that citizenship status must be equal for everyone, and Canadian laws must be consistent.

Despite what my colleagues opposite may think, the amendments adopted by a majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration are consistent with that approach.

I look forward to questions.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be in the House today speaking to the bill before us.

Fundamentally, we are talking about Bill C-3, which is a chain migration bill. It is a bill that would allow parents who were not born in Canada to give their children who were not born in Canada citizenship forever and ever. From my perspective, that is not a good thing.

How did we get to this place? Originally, way back when, there was Bill S-245, which was meant to fix one simple thing: the issue of lost Canadians. Then there was a court ruling that happened in Ontario that the federal government chose not to appeal. The Liberals chose to allow the courts to establish the policy of the Government of Canada. I think they were too weak or too scared, I am not sure which, to actually make the policy themselves, so they just said, “Great, we'll do what the court asks.”

In my opinion, the Liberals should have appealed the ruling and should have made their own decision in terms of what they wanted in the legislation. However, they then introduced Bill C-71 in the last session and forgot about it. They did not act on it in any way, and now here we are with essentially the same bill.

As I said, Bill C-3 is chain migration bill; it would allow people to pass on citizenship to their children indefinitely, whether they were born in Canada or not. The Liberals have actually put one condition on this. They keep talking about the semantics of the kind of method by which people are getting their citizenship, but at the end of the day, it does not really matter; there is a condition, which is the 1,095 days that a person would have to be present in Canada, which we have heard about all day long here.

We are essentially saying that it is fine, but we want to tweak it a bit and add a couple more conditions, which is all this is. Really what we are arguing about in the House today is how many and which conditions. It is not zero conditions; there are some conditions. The government has proposed some, and we are proposing a few more.

We are proposing that we strengthen the connection test a little so that, yes, a person could be here 1,095 days, which do not have to be consecutive but would have to be within a five-year period. We are also proposing making sure that people have either English or French proficiency, that they know the country they are coming to by taking a citizenship test and that they do not have a criminal record.

These are things that we believe are very reasonable and very fair and that should be done. Of course at committee we were able to put forward these common-sense proposals. We received majority support with the help of the Bloc at committee to do this, but now the government, in its incessant desire to break everything, wants to change that again, so here we are now.

Members might ask what the risk is. We are talking about children and other people who probably have a connection, which is quite likely true in many cases. There are people who are very legitimate who are young, under the age of 15 or 16 years old and potentially under the age of five or 10 years. Certainly those people, generally speaking, would be legitimate claimants to citizenship, but we have a very weak system.

The government has broken our immigration system so badly. It has messed up when it comes to asylum and when it comes to losing control of the number of students coming into our country. Everybody knows that; the faults are well known and well documented. However, now we have a government that has completely broken our system, saying, “Trust us. We've got this. We know exactly what we are doing.” Well, pardon me if I do not trust the government and if I do not think it has got this, because I do not think it does.

We know that when there is a weak system, there are bad actors in the world who try to take advantage of things, which is exactly what would happen through the proposed system. That is why we proposed some amendments, and I will quickly go through them.

First is the time period. The government's first condition that it proposed was that parents would have to spend 1,095 days in Canada before the birth of a child. We think that is fine, except that we want to see a bit of a stronger connection test, because the days could be over quite a span of years. What we are proposing is that the 1,095 non-consecutive days happen within a five-year window. That is what we are proposing, and we think it is very reasonable.

Second, we believe that people who obtain citizenship through this method should be able to speak either French or English. It is a fairly simple requirement; it is not complicated. We require this of all other people who obtain citizenship in our country, so we feel that is a very reasonable request and quite necessary for having a good, solid life in Canada.

The third condition we think should be in the bill is a citizenship test. We need to make sure that the people who are coming to our country actually know about our country, because by definition, these are people who have potentially not spent any time in Canada. We need to know that they understand what it means to be in Canada and what their rights and responsibilities are, just like other people who come to our country.

Finally, the other condition we think is very reasonable and prudent is a security check. We want to make sure that people who are criminals in other countries do not automatically get citizenship in Canada. This seem like common sense. I do not understand why it is so complicated for the government to understand.

There could be person who has been convicted of crimes in other country and then realizes that their parents lived in Canada for 1,095 days before they were born, when their parents were in university or something like that, and who thinks they have a solution: Even though they are wanted for crimes in their own country, they will just go to Canada because their parents could pass on their citizenship. That is what we are trying to avoid, and a simple security check would prevent that from happening.

One other thing that we asked to be included, which I think is very reasonable, is a reporting mechanism so Parliament and therefore Canadians would know how many people were granted citizenship through this method.

I think these are very reasonable things to ask.

There is risk when people can manipulate and abuse a weak system to their advantage. The amendments that would essentially add a few more conditions to the one the Liberals already proposed would mitigate those risks, making the system a little less weak and potentially a little less risky.

One thing I also want to mention is that there would be many young people who would be affected by the legislation, those under the age of 16 years, as I said before. They should be able to fly through the requirements very easily: the time period, languages, the test of Canada and the security screening, which they may be exempt from. Right now we require that only of people who are between the ages of 18 and 54. There would actually be no burden on young people.

That gets back to my original point: We are not after the people who are coming here legitimately. We want to make sure that those people do get the citizenship they are owed. However, we want to make sure that people who do not deserve citizenship, those who are taking advantage of the system, would be subject to some checks, just to make sure we can control and know who is coming into our country.

I know that the NDP is very angry at voters for taking away its party status in the House. That has caused a lot of angst, I am sure, in its ranks and in its members. The member for Vancouver East was very much opposed to the changes made at committee without her being able to be there. I know that she spoke on Friday, and there are a couple of things that I want to make sure she understands.

The first is about consecutive days. The member mentioned that we are proposing that the condition needs to be consecutive days. It does not. It would be 1,095 days within a five-year period. We realize that people do need to have the opportunity to visit their home country for weddings, funerals or different events that happen, and that seems very reasonable. It is not consecutive days; it is just that within a five-year period, we feel there should be a substantial connection to Canada.

The other thing I want to mention briefly is the confusion about who is a visitor to our country. It is pretty clear. As a kid, I grew up in a lovely town on the eastern side of Saskatchewan called Yorkton. My grandparents lived on the exact opposite side of the province in a small town called Herbert, another lovely town in Saskatchewan. As a youth, I spent a lot of time in Herbert, Saskatchewan, but I always considered myself a visitor to Herbert; I never thought I was actually from Herbert or had any kind of substantial connection to Herbert. I grew up in Yorkton, and that was where I spent most of my time.

That is the principle we need to follow. People may have visited Canada a number of times, and that is fine. We welcome visitors. We love it when they spend their money in our country; it is amazing, but we also need to make sure that this does not imply in any way that it makes them entitled to become a citizen of this country. We have to be very clear on what "visitor" means and what it is.

We also have to be careful of the government we have and the now seventh immigration minister we have in the House. We have had seven immigration ministers in 10 years, who have not done their due diligence on bills like the one that is before us. The current minister just took the bill from the last Parliament, which was the bill from the previous one. They just bring the bills along without actually putting some thought and logic into what is going on. That is very dangerous, and we have be very careful of it.

What we are seeing right now is that the old NDP-Liberal coalition is back on. There is a budget coming up next week, and I think what is going on here is that in return for its support of the budget, the NDP has demanded that the Liberals support it on the amendments they want to this bill. That is where we are right now; the NDP-Liberal coalition lives on.

Citizenship has value. We need to make sure that we reinforce that and that we defend that.

Motions in Amendment

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been carrying this file for more than a decade.

As I have said, I do not have lost Canadians within my own family unit. My children were born in Canada. I am an immigrant, so I am a first-generation born-abroad individual, but my children were born here, so they are not impacted in any shape or form. However, that does not matter.

What matters is that there are people who are lost Canadians in this context. It is critically important to pass this legislation back to its original form, based on the amendments made to Senate Bill S-245 that I motivated. It is also based on the government bill later introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-71.

Here we are. It is morally and legally the right thing to do, and that is why we have to do it.

Citizenship Act

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today, we debate a very familiar piece of legislation to the House that has been brought back from previous parliaments. Bill C-3 may be newly introduced, but the substance of the bill is more of the same. It is the same broken car that the Liberals tried to drive through the House last year with a different coat of paint.

Let us be clear that it was originally Conservative legislation from the Senate. Bill S-245 was a private member's bill containing provisions to address lost Canadians. The Conservatives were supportive of the original substance of that bill, but thanks to the Liberal government, the bill was significantly amended, and it eventually stalled at report stage. In May 2024, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-71, which drastically went beyond the original scope of Bill S-245. Therefore, we started with Bill S-245, then we had Bill C-71 and now we are dealing with Bill C-3.

Bill C-3 has three separate pieces of information that must be understood individually. The first part is citizenship by descent. We may not agree on everything in this House, but I believe we can all agree that becoming a Canadian citizen is a privilege. However, as written, Bill C-3 undermines Canadian citizenship. In fact, Canada has important safeguards in place that protect our citizenship, like the first-generation limit.

I want to stress that we have policy like this for a reason. As my colleagues have mentioned, at the height of the 2006 conflict, Lebanese Canadians living in Lebanon looked to the Canadian government for help, and Canada answered the call, spending $94 million to successfully evacuate 15,000 Canadians to safety. Despite living in Lebanon full time prior to the conflict and having little connection to Canada, they still benefited from their Canadian citizenship and became known as Canadians of convenience. Following a ceasefire in the conflict, many Lebanese Canadians immediately returned to Lebanon. This was a wake-up call for Canada, and in 2009, the previous Conservative government responded with implementing the first-generation limit. This reasonable measure set out that only the first generation of children born abroad to Canadian citizens could automatically obtain citizenship.

Members may be shocked to learn that this safeguard for Canadian citizenship against Canadians of convenience would be eliminated by Liberal Bill C-3, as written. The Liberals seek to replace this safeguard to obtaining citizenship by descent with something called a substantial connection requirement. This extremely weak requirement simply means that parents must prove they spent 1,095 non-consecutive days physically in Canada before the birth of their child. This legislation would not even require a criminal record check.

The Liberals believe that parents spending a few weeks or months spread out over decades is enough of a substantial connection to automatically extend citizenship to multiple generations of people born outside of Canada. We still do not understand what evidence would be required as proof that parents spent just over 1,000 days in Canada at any point in their life. Through Bill C-3, the Liberal government could be opening Canadian citizenship to people with criminal records or to individuals who may not even realize they could claim Canadian citizenship in the first place.

When the previous version of this legislation was studied, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that as many as 115,000 new citizens outside of Canada could be created. According to the National Post, “The government has no idea how many people will be automatically granted citizenship if the legislation is passed.” Why would the Liberal government create a new system with a potentially limitless chain of migration? This is deeply concerning, but after 10 years of the Liberals destroying our immigration system, we cannot be surprised.

The second part of Bill C-3, which the Conservatives do support, is the adopted children provision. Right now, provisions in the Citizenship Act state that when a Canadian citizen adopts a person born outside of Canada, the parent would need to start a lengthy process of applying for a child's permanent residence. Instead, this bill would remove an unnecessary burden on adoptive parents and treat an adopted person as if they were born here in Canada, automatically granting Canadian citizenship to the child. This is a simple and reasonable approach to achieving equal treatment for adopted children, and the Conservatives support it.

Third, we come to the restoration of citizenship to lost Canadians. As a result of compounding legislation and amendments to section 8 of the Citizenship Act, a group of people born to Canadian parents between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, had to apply to reinstate their citizenship before turning 28 years old. Those who did not apply to reinstate their citizenship lost it, despite being raised in Canada, going to school here and starting their families here. The Conservatives support the provisions in Bill C-3 to correct this error.

Canadians are paying the price for the Liberals' out-of-control immigration policies. Let me be clear. Immigration is important to our country, but the government must have control over it. Right now, the Liberals have zero control over their immigration policy. Effective immigration policy should be tied to outcomes, and it should consider the supply of housing, health care and jobs. This is important not only for Canadians who are trying to buy a house, find a job and get a family doctor; it is equally important for newcomers. It is wrong to set immigrants up for failure in a country that does not have the capacity to support them. Unfortunately, the Liberals have lost complete control over immigration.

Let us examine health care, for example. Last year, the Liberals brought in nearly a half a million permanent immigrants. Meanwhile, 6.5 million Canadians do not have a family doctor. The Liberals see no problem adding hundreds of thousands of new patients to a health care system that is already overburdened. Emergency room closures are occurring on a regular basis while health care workers are burnt out from working millions of hours of overtime. Canada is currently short at least 23,000 family doctors and 60,000 registered nurses, with these numbers set to dramatically increase in the next few years. Someone does not need an economics degree to understand that the increasing demand on our health care system through unfocused immigration while the supply of capacity is collapsing is a recipe for disaster. I guarantee that our health care system is only going to get worse under the Liberal government's failed immigration policy.

The Liberals are not just driving up demand through their failed immigration policy; they have failed to build capacity too. While the government adds record demand to our health care system, it is restricting the supply of qualified health care professionals from working. According to the health minister's own department, of the 200,000 internationally trained health professionals employed in Canada, 80,000 are not working in their field. Eighty thousand internationally trained health care professionals who immigrated to Canada thinking there was a place for them to contribute to our overwhelmed health care system are being blocked from working.

I met a vascular surgeon from Brazil who has years of training and experience yet sees no path to practising in Canada. The Liberals bring doctors and nurses to Canada for their expertise but block them from working in their profession. I was in Toronto, where I met a doctor from Argentina with many years of experience. She came to Canada hoping to use her skills and experience to provide care for our people. Today, she works at Home Depot because gatekeepers and licensing bodies block her from getting certified to practise.

For 10 years, the Liberals have turned immigration into a numbers game while ignoring capacity, ignoring the needs of Canadians and ignoring the very newcomers they claim to welcome. Blocking doctors and nurses from working while adding millions of new patients to a broken health care system is insane. We cannot fix our broken health care system without fixing our broken immigration system first. The Conservatives are committing to fixing that problem. We should only invite the right people in the right numbers so that our health care system can catch up. At the same time, we must implement a national blue seal professional testing standard to ensure that foreign-trained health care workers can work in Canada. We must enable health care workers to take their skills wherever they are needed across our country.

The Conservatives know that the parts of Bill C-3 have potential, but we cannot support rushed Liberal legislation that is so poorly thought out. The Conservatives will make recommendations to improve this legislation and implement real safeguards to strengthen the citizenship we are so blessed to have.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Bill C-3 responds to a court ruling. I will provide a bit of background. In 2009, the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to prohibit passing on citizenship beyond the second generation. On December 19, 2023, the Superior Court of Ontario struck down certain provisions of the Citizenship Act, ruling that they violated the section on mobility rights, which states: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”. The provisions also violated a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard to equality before and under the law and the equal protection and benefit of the law.

The parties challenging the Citizenship Act represented seven families that had been discriminated against by the legislation. The court recognized that the ban introduced in the act was unfair, particularly for women who had to choose between the birthplace of their child and the ability to pass on citizenship. Take the case of the Brooke-Bjorkquist family's child. That child was born in Geneva in 2010 to Mr. Brooke and Ms. Bjorkquist, who were working for the government abroad. Despite the fact that the child was born to two Canadian parents and returned to Canada at age one, the child could not, under the current provisions of the act, follow in their parents' footsteps by working abroad and having a child abroad, because they would not be able to pass on citizenship to their child. That is the problem that was raised in court. This is an absurd situation because the birth of that child in Switzerland is a circumstance due to their parents' work abroad in service of Canada, and practically their entire life has been and should continue to be spent in Canada.

Bill C-3 is an identical copy of Bill C-71 from the 44th Parliament, which did not pass. It is also similar to Bill S-245. In 2023, the court gave the government six months to pass legislation to fix the problems. Despite the deadline having passed, here we go again.

I would like to briefly review certain aspects of the history of Canadian citizenship. It is a relatively recent development in the country's history. When Confederation came about in 1867, Canadians were British subjects. It was not until the first Immigration Act was passed in 1910 that citizenship was first mentioned. It defined Canadians as persons born in Canada, British subjects living in Canada, or immigrants naturalized as Canadians. The objective was to facilitate their passage across borders.

In 1921, the Canadian Nationals Act was passed, defining Canadian nationality for immigration purposes for the first time, but without establishing Canadian nationality status. Other laws were also passed, such as the naturalization acts of 1906 and 1914 that sought to govern naturalization, as their names suggest. It was not until Mackenzie King, who became the first Canadian citizen, introduced the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1947, that Canadian citizenship was finally defined for the first time and granted to women as a matter of right.

However, the 1947 act was not perfect. At the time, citizenship was not considered a guaranteed right, but a discretionary power of Parliament. Many situations, particularly those involving naturalization and citizenship by descent, were covered incompletely or not at all. For example, under this regime, when the responsible parent took the citizenship of another country, their children lost their Canadian citizenship. Other obscure provisions, such as the requirement for Canadian children born abroad to reside in Canada during their 24th year, resulted in many individuals living in Canada not officially having citizenship.

The act was next modernized in 1977, and this iteration attempted to simplify the previous citizenship regime. However, the regime remains unfair for several groups, particularly children born abroad. For example, under the 1977 Citizenship Act, individuals who obtained citizenship by descent had to reiterate their desire to retain their citizenship before the age of 28 or risk having it revoked. Because of this little-known requirement, many individuals living in Canada lost their citizenship without even knowing it.

The government failed to communicate this requirement to its citizens, and it was only when the affected individuals had to prove they were citizens, to apply for a passport, for example, that they discovered that they no longer had Canadian citizenship. Some people had been living in Canada for generations. Their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on had been living in Canada, yet they found themselves stateless. These people continue to experience problems, and Bill C-3 aims to fix some of these issues.

These individuals who lost their citizenship as a result of certain obscure, unfair or discriminatory rules are known as lost Canadians. It is a diverse group, consisting of military spouses, children, soldiers, second-generation children born abroad, children of immigrants, border babies, orphans, indigenous Canadians and Chinese Canadians, to name but a few.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration establishes four categories of lost Canadians. The first is war brides, meaning women who married Canadian soldiers fighting for Canada in World War II and who immigrated to Canada during or after the war to join their Canadian husbands. The second is people who were born abroad to a Canadian parent before the current Citizenship Act came into force in February 1977. The third is people who lost their citizenship between January 1947 and February 1977 because they or a parent acquired the citizenship and nationality of another country. Lastly, there are second- and subsequent-generation Canadians born abroad since the current Citizenship Act came into force in February 1977.

Their plight was brought to the public's attention thanks to Don Chapman, a former United Airlines pilot who found out that he had been stripped of his citizenship when his father emigrated to the United States. By deftly showing that this problem was affecting many Canadians unbeknownst to them, he forced Parliament's hand. Even General Roméo Dallaire was affected by the problem. To address it, Canada adopted a series of legislative reforms in 2005, 2009 and 2015.

Errors and inconsistencies persisted, however, and Bill C-3 seeks to correct them. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill before us. There will be some very important discussions in committee and amendments will be proposed to improve the bill and allay the fears and uncertainty that have been raised in the speeches in the House. For the Bloc Québécois, these are technical adjustments being made in the interest of justice that seek to harmonize the application of laws and to correct injustices committed in the past. To us, it is a matter of principle.

This bill, which I believe is technical in nature and responds to a court ruling, should, in our opinion, have been passed within six months of the ruling. When it comes to citizenship, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in particular, there are still a number of ongoing problems and irregularities that need to be addressed. I cannot describe in parliamentary language how this department functions. It should be thoroughly reviewed and improved.

In each of our constituency offices, we receive numerous calls, emails and requests almost every day from people asking us to speed up the process, deal with lost documents and provide assistance. In most cases, these are heart-wrenching stories. These are people who are living in uncertainty and facing challenges. Our immigration and citizenship legislation needs to be completely overhauled to simplify and clarify the process. The department needs to speed up the process, because in most cases, it is inhumane.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House as the member entrusted to represent the good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies in beautiful British Columbia.

It is important for all members to bear in mind that we, as members of the House, have a duty because our fellow Canadians, the constituents we represent, trusted us to be their voice in this place. Canadians look to us, to Parliament, to deliver good work and solutions. There is no shortage of crises facing Canadians today. We must be seized with our collective duty to deliver timely and efficient legislation to move our nation away from the crises we face. Let us never forget why we are here in this place; we are here to represent the good people who elected us.

It is good to be back in the chamber after a summer of meetings and conversations with the good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. There were many conversations about the issues that are important to the people at home, and I look forward to voicing their concerns here. Constituents shared their concerns with me, concerns about the increasing cost of living, housing shortages, rising joblessness and crime on our streets. These conversations and discussions are valuable to me as an elected representative, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my sentiment, because we as legislators have a duty to address these issues and make good laws for all Canadians.

Today we are debating government Bill C-3, which seeks to amend the Citizenship Act. It goes without saying that Canadian citizenship is valuable. For citizens, Canadian citizenship bestows the fundamental rights of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights that preceded it.

The Government of Canada carries significant responsibilities for its citizens. Whether or not the government of the day is fulfilling its responsibilities is an essential and big question. However, we are here now to examine Bill C-3, not the ongoing failures of the government. That said, the value of citizenship may be directly devalued by governments that fail to deliver sound policy and actions that uphold the fundamental rights of citizens and deliver core functions of the federal government. These are not small responsibilities; to the contrary, they are profound, which is why any legislation dealing with Canadian citizenship must strike the precise balance.

The bill before us today, Bill C-3, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, with proposals dealing with citizenship by descent, citizenship for adopted children and citizenship for persons known as lost Canadians.

For Canadians watching at home, I must clarify that Bill C-3 is recycled legislation. It is a reiteration of Bill C-71, which was introduced by the Trudeau government in the last Parliament but failed to pass because it did not achieve the support required to become law. Despite the failure of the last bill, here we are, examining the same bill. Rather than listening to the concerns raised by members of the House, elected by Canadian citizens, the government has wilfully chosen to bring the same flawed bill back again.

The government has not changed; only the deck chairs have changed. It seems that either the government was not listening when the proposals were debated in the 44th Parliament, or it now does not care that members raised concerns and objections to those proposals. It is certainly a curious scene when a government speaks a great deal about collaboration and consensus building and then hits replay on a piece of legislation without including amendments or responding to the concerns and objections already raised by elected members.

I hope my colleagues across the way are truthful when they speak of collaboration and working together. I look forward to working with them and supporting amendments the Conservatives will likely provide so the legislation can hit the precise balance I mentioned earlier. Canadians deserve no less from their Parliament. I hope members across the way will join us in fulfilling our duties to Canadians.

Bill C-3, in its current form, seeks to establish Canadian citizenship by descent; Conservatives do not support this part of the bill. The legislation seeks to automatically extend Canadian citizenship to unlimited generations born abroad with only minimal connection to Canada.

Prior to 2009, Canadian citizens could pass on their citizenship for two generations born outside Canada; after 2009, it was changed to one generation and the first-generation rule was introduced to limit the extension of Canadian citizenship. Under the 2009 rule, a Canadian citizen born outside Canada could pass their citizenship to their child born outside Canada for one generation, but descendants of the next generation born outside Canada were not automatically extended citizenship. That was called the first-generation rule. Bill C-3 that we are debating today would effectively abolish that rule and replace it with a rule allowing citizenship to be extended to generation after generation born abroad, endlessly, over and over.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has sent the first-generation rule back to Parliament to be reworked. The court also concluded that it was reasonable to apply a substantial connection test for extension of citizenship, and this is an important question for Parliament to answer as we examine and potentially amend the bill. The only test that the bill proposes for the endless extension of Canadian citizenship to persons born abroad is that they spend 1,095 days, which is three years, in Canada. These are nonconsecutive days, I might add. I believe all members agree there is a problem that requires a solution, but the current proposals in the bill must be amended. I am sure my Conservative colleagues will have amendments prepared for committee examination of the bill if it gets to committee. Conservatives will be ready to work collaboratively to balance the bill at committee, and I hope all other sides will likewise co-operate to improve the legislation and provide an appropriate solution for the problem that must be resolved.

The second provision of the bill deals with citizenship for children adopted from abroad by Canadian citizens. The bill proposes to extend citizenship to children adopted from abroad by Canadian citizens once the adoption is finalized. This proposal makes sense, and it strikes the right balance when considering who should be eligible for Canadian citizenship.

The third proposal of the bill relates to restoring citizenship for persons born in the late 1970s or early 1980s who were unintentionally prevented from applying for citizenship after the age of 28. Conservatives recognize the need for this situation to be remedied. That is why my Conservative colleague, Senator Yonah Martin, brought this very proposal forward in Bill S-245 in the previous Parliament. This measure should have passed two years ago, and I certainly hope colleagues across the way will walk the talk of collaboration to finally get this important measure finalized.

In closing, we must work to improve the bill, which must be balanced because citizenship by descent for endless generations is simply not sustainable, nor is it appropriate. Great damage has been inflicted on the Canadian immigration system over the past decade; this has shaken the trust that Canadians used to place in Canada's immigration and citizenship system. This damage was caused by policies that were unbalanced and reckless. Let us work together to start restoring an immigration system that works and conserves the value of being a Canadian citizen. Canadians deserve no less.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing, which is that I have dealt with lost Canadians and the struggles they faced. I am glad that the bill includes the provisions from Bill S-245, which is very important. I want to see those people made whole, and I want to see that passed.

However, in general, there is a lot of pressure on my staff to deal with people in very precarious situations. It is the temporary foreign worker who has not had a proper work visa for the last couple of months who is now working under the table and is at risk of being trafficked. There is a lot of abuse in the temporary foreign worker program, and they come to MPs looking for help. They cannot get that help from government agencies. There is close to zero enforcement of our immigration policies in the Fraser Valley where we see a high proportion of Canada's immigrants first land.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my wonderful constituents in Canada's number one riding, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. It was a great summer, and I appreciate all the feedback I received from them. I am motivated to serve on their behalf and to fight for the things that were discussed during the election, namely addressing the affordability crisis, the cost of living challenges that young families are facing, rising crime and a ballooning deficit that may be out of control. We do not know because we have not seen a budget tabled.

The government had all summer to work on all of those priorities. In fact, the Liberal platform, on page one and two, talked about being at war, “economic war”, with the United States, yet on our first day back, we are debating a bill and a major policy provision within that legislation that will fundamentally change what it means to be Canadian. This was not in the platform. It was not in the commitments made by the Prime Minister during the summer or really any time since he was appointed and subsequently elected to the top office in our country.

For people listening in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, the reason we have this legislation before us today is that in 2023, Justice Akbarali of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the 2009 provisions to the Citizenship Act were unconstitutional. The Trudeau government had the opportunity to appeal to subsequent courts. Maybe this legislation or this question before us today should have gone to the Supreme Court, but the government decided we were better to leave it in the hands of a provincial court and not have the superior court of our country, the Supreme Court of Canada, make a decision on what constitutes being a Canadian.

I will note that there are some provisions in this legislation that were originally in Bill S-245, namely the extension of citizenship to restore citizenship to lost Canadians who were affected between 1977 and 1981. There are also provisions for children adopted by Canadians to ensure that their citizenship held the same quality as Canadians born on Canadian soil. I will note that I support those two provisions. They are good provisions and I want to see them passed.

However, with respect to the substantive part of this legislation, namely the substantial connection clause outlined by the Ontario justice as a recommendation, I have very many concerns, mainly around the integrity of Canadian citizenship. What does it mean to be a Canadian in the 21st century? What are the duties of citizenship? What duties does the Government of Canada have toward its citizens? All of these questions should be debated today in the House of Commons and in subsequent days because this legislation will impact how we move forward and how we see citizenship.

I hope the minister, if this bill passes second reading, will answer those questions for all Canadians. How is it fair to the immigrants who spent years building a life here? What prevents another wave of Canadians of convenience who only show up for benefits? Why is the government lowering the bar by counting non-consecutive days under the substantial connection clause when other countries in the G7, for example, require far stricter rules for family ties?

I want the minister to outline how Bill C-3 will impact Canada's security. Under the current rules for IRCC, all immigrants, all those on work visas, all refugees go through some type of security check. By extending citizenship to the grandchildren of Canadians, I believe the minister should outline how Canada's public safety will be impacted.

The second thing I would like to discuss as it relates to extending citizenship to possibly hundreds of thousands of people around the world is how it would impact the responsibilities of Canadians to serve in the Canadian military during a war. What impact would this have on conscription?

Right now, for example, there are over 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong. There are probably over a million Canadians living in the United States. There are between 40,000 and 50,000 Canadians living in Lebanon. There are probably over 20,000 Canadians living in Pakistan.

If the government were to implement conscription, how would it apply to Canadians living abroad? Would they be required, like the children born here, to bear arms for Canada, or would they be exempt?

We have seen the second aspect of obligations related to this legislation bear out in previous natural disasters and conflicts around the world, namely in Lebanon. Indeed, former prime minister Harper brought in stricter generational limits to citizenship in response to the outcry from Canadians who wondered why the Government of Canada had to send the Royal Canadian Navy to rescue hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were living in Lebanon without any real ties to our country anymore but who still held Canadian citizenship.

The government did the right thing, something I support, and went and protected those people. By extending citizenship to possibly hundreds of thousands more people, the minister needs to come clean about what obligations the Government of Canada would have to those people and how it would respond to a humanitarian crisis where hundreds of thousands of Canadians might be living.

We do not have those answers, and the minister needs to come clean about how she would respond to those situations. We only need to look to Hong Kong and the conflicts we have seen there with the erosion of democracy. How would Canada respond to the citizens of Hong Kong in an emergency or in any other major conflict that could possibly erupt in Asia?

IRCC is very slow. IRCC does not do a very good job. In fact, it places an administrative burden on every single member in the House. I have to employ a full-time staff member to make up for the inability of a government department to do its job and properly process legitimate applications to reside in Canada on a daily basis.

When we take an oath as a member of Parliament, it is not to be a satellite office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. No, our job is to approve and disapprove the spending of Parliament, to be representatives and to pass legislation. The work we do is symptomatic of the failure of Canada's bureaucracy to uphold and fulfill its duties to Canadians.

With the passage of this legislation, the minister needs to be clear on what administrative burden the government will be putting on the overworked public servants at IRCC and the inability of management to fix the long-standing issues we see in the country.

Finally, as I am running out of time, the last point I would like to raise is on voting. If we extend citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are the descendants of people born in Canada, their grandchildren, how will that impact elections?

Let us think about Nepean. Mr. Chandra was ousted from the Liberal Party after he ran for Liberal leadership. The Prime Minister is now the member for Nepean. What would stop Mr. Chandra from organizing all of these new Canadians in India to vote against the Prime Minister in Nepean?

Citizens living abroad get to choose whatever riding they like to vote in under the Canada Elections Act. The minister needs to come clean about how citizenship and elections would be impacted by this legislation.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be back in this historic chamber to represent the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, a bill that reopens some of the most important questions for any country in any society: Who gets to be a citizen, and what does it mean to be a citizen? There are a few schools of thought. One school of thought we heard from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. When asked about Canadian identity, we were told that Canada has “no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, and in fact, that Canada is the first postnational state. We have seen the current Prime Minister echo this theme as a self-proclaimed “elitist” and “globalist”, and he believes this is “exactly what [Canadians] need.”

In contrast, Conservatives believe Canada has a strong and unique core identity. To be Canadian is to share a genuine connection to Canada, its institutions, its traditions, and most importantly, to share a commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. It holds a belief that rights are balanced with responsibilities and recognizes that citizenship comes with the responsibility to contribute to the community, to respect the laws and to uphold the values that unite us as a nation.

We believe in a Canada where citizenship is earned and respected, where newcomers embrace our shared heritage and contribute to our society, and where every Canadian takes pride in belonging to a diverse country that stands for unity, opportunity, hard work and mutual respect. Canadian citizenship should reflect a genuine connection to our country.

Just like countless members of my community in Vaughan—Woodbridge, and no doubt many members of this chamber, my family understood the privilege of being Canadian when they immigrated to Canada. They understood that it came with commitment. It meant, and should always mean, that we have to wake up in the morning and contribute to the country that gave us a new life and a new home. Bill C-3 casts a shadow over this fundamental need for commitment, specifically with the provision of citizenship by descent.

What is Bill C-3, and why can we not support this bill in its current form? Bill C-3 is the latest attempt by the Liberal government to rewrite Canada's citizenship laws, but this bill is not new. It was originally introduced as Bill C-71 in the last Parliament after the government took over Conservative Senator Martin's bill, Bill S-245, which was a targeted Conservative bill designed to fix a narrow gap in the law that affected a small group of what are known as lost Canadians.

To clarify, lost Canadians are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it, or thought they were entitled to Canadian citizenship and never received it. Notably, many individuals born between 1977 and 1981 remain without citizenship, as the first-generation limit provisions were not retroactively applied. These individuals were often raised in Canada. They attended Canadian schools, work here and started families here. They are Canadian, yet despite their strong ties to the country, they are unable to access health care, obtain passports, vote or exercise the full rights of Canadian citizens.

Bill C-3 also has a provision for adopted children, which we support. Adopted children of Canadian citizens would receive the same treatment as biological children. Conservative MPs supported extending this equal treatment to adopted children born abroad to Canadian citizens during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-245 in committee. Instead of respecting the original intent of that bill, the Liberals, with the support of their NDP partners, expanded it dramatically. What started as a responsible, narrowly focused piece of legislation became a sweeping change of how citizenship is passed down across generations.

The government claims these changes are necessary to respond to a court decision from December 2023, where the Ontario Superior Court ruled against parts of the first-generation limit on citizenship for children born abroad, but instead of appealing that decision or addressing the court's concern with limited rational fixes, the government chose to use it as its reason to open the floodgates.

Under Bill C-3, anyone born outside of Canada to a Canadian citizen could automatically get citizenship as long as that person has spent just 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada at any point in their life. There is no requirement for recent presence in the country, no requirement for the person to have a connection to the country today and no requirement for background checks. I will say that again: There are no criminal background checks. This is ridiculous. At a time when Canada has experienced a 55% increase in crime since the Liberals took office, we must, as parliamentarians, ensure we are doing our due diligence to maintain public safety. In fact, Canadians expect us to do so.

We have seen what has happened over the last 10 years when Liberal governments do not properly consider legislation before it is enacted. Weak soft-on-crime laws have caused a wave of crimes unleashed in places like my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. There are shootings, home invasions, murders and car thefts, all because of an ideological approach to justice and changing bail laws, making it easier for criminals to get out of jail and reoffend. We must be very careful to ensure that background checks and conviction screenings are not overlooked. It is crucial to include this provision and make the necessary changes to this bill.

The government has not even provided a ballpark estimate of how many people would be granted citizenship under this bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that its predecessor bill, Bill C-71, would have created 115,000 new citizens outside Canada in just five years. With no upper limit, the number could multiply for generations. Who will pay for this? Canadians would, through our health care system, our pensions and our already stretched housing market.

I cannot help but be reminded of how the government has broken the immigration system. I heard from countless people in my community of Vaughan—Woodbridge that they cannot afford an immigration system that drives up unemployment. They are tired and frustrated, and citizens want parliamentarians to apply reason and logic when enacting legislation. They want us to ensure that no more unnecessary burdens are placed on our country.

Speaking of burdens, how about the administrative burdens of the bill? IRCC officials could not even guess how many proof-of-citizenship applications would flood an already overburdened system. As immigration lawyer Krisha Dhaliwal put it, “details have not been provided regarding what kinds of evidence will be required to demonstrate the 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada.”

Let me be clear. Conservatives support the restoration of lost Canadians. Conservatives support equal treatment for adopted children. However, this bill goes far beyond that. Why? Why can the Liberal government not just address the issues at hand? Why expand this legislation with an ideological stance on postnational citizenship and include something that would only weaken our country? Bill C-3 would erode the value of Canadian citizenship. It would create a new system that further undermines our national identity by not requiring adequate connection to our country and would add constraint to our already broken system.

Conservatives do not want to throw this bill out. They want to fix it. Here are some things we can do. We can require consecutive physical presence in Canada. We can also require criminal background checks to prevent dangerous individuals from gaining automatic citizenship. Conservatives support targeted fixes, not ideological overreach. We are prepared to work constructively to amend and improve this bill for the good of all Canadians.

Citizenship is not just paperwork; it is a commitment to a country, its values, its people and its future. We should be proud to offer citizenship to those who love and contribute to this country, but we also have a duty to protect the value of what Canadian citizenship means. Conservatives will not support Bill C-3 in its current form, but we are ready to work in good faith to improve it.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again in the House of Commons, for the first time this fall session after a couple of interventions as a newly elected member in the spring. It is such an honour to be here to represent the great people of southwestern Manitoba and the Wheat City of Brandon.

Bill C-3 is an important topic. Our Manitoba Conservative caucus just completed a couple of days of caucus retreat to make sure we were hearing from different stakeholders, industry groups, etc., from the province, to make sure we are on top of issues coming back to Parliament today. We certainly heard a lot about immigration. It is top of mind for a lot of Manitobans right now. Manitoba has always been an interesting context within the framework of the overall immigration system across the country.

I recognize some comments from members opposite about immigration and that this is a citizenship bill, which is a separate conversation. However, if this bill ends up being passed in its current form, there would be a significant number of new Canadians as a result who would be eligible to be Canadian citizens and to receive all the rights and privileges that that entitles them to, which in effect still affects the number of Canadian citizens.

We are in a time when we are talking, in the broader immigration context, about the fact that all of our social services, particularly our health care system and, without question, our housing system, have not been able to compete and keep up with the number of people coming into Canada and becoming new citizens of this country. The members opposite seem to want to completely differentiate this conversation and say that it has no impact whatsoever, the context of who would be impacted by this bill. Certainly we on this side and the vast majority of common-sense Canadians understand that the two are related and that these two topics have to go hand in hand when we are talking about whether Canada is prepared to welcome these potential Canadian citizens, if they get their citizenship, back into the country and what the impact of that would be.

The member opposite also talked a lot about our colleague in the Senate, Senator Martin's Bill S-245. My colleague from Ponoka—Didsbury covered that quite well, in that that bill very specifically dealt with lost Canadians, which is certainly a challenging situation, and we supported it as Conservatives. I was not here, of course, being a newly elected member, but it is certainly something we supported. It is unfortunate that Senator Martin's bill was stalled and delayed by the Liberals and their allies in the previous Parliament. It should be law by now; it should be in effect. Unfortunately, Bill C-3 and its predecessor, Bill C-71, are dramatically expanded in the terms of their scope. We as Conservatives have some serious questions as well as some amendments to propose about exactly what we feel could improve this piece of legislation.

To be clear, we very much support the provisions that came from Bill S-245 by Senator Martin supporting section 8, lost Canadians. This is something that, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned, was a compounding of bad legislation that should have been addressed a long time ago.

We also support the equal treatment of adopted children. In a previous role, I worked for the Minister of Families in Manitoba. For those who do not have the context on that, Manitoba has one of the largest CFS systems in the country, a very tragic legacy of the treatment of children there. Too often, in both federal and provincial law, adopted children and adoptive families are forgotten about or left behind in the framework that we proceed under in supporting young families and children in this country. We certainly support that update to ensure that they are treated equally, as they should be, as true families.

However, there are lots of concerns. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands used Rosie O'Donnell and the idea of her citizenship getting revoked by Donald Trump as an example, but Rosie O'Donnell was born in the United States, so that is not a good example in terms of the discussion we are having today. We are talking about people who were not born in Canada and their children who were not born in Canada.

On this discussion about the reasonable connection to the country of Canada, 1,095 days, or three years, and non-consecutive, on face value, to the majority of my constituents anyway, sounds like a long period of time. Let us look at that a little more at length. Someone who is the child of a foreign-born Canadian citizen and whose grandparents were born in Canada may have had summer breaks here as a baby, as a toddler, a couple of times in high school and a couple of times in their twenties, but then at 50, 60 or 70 decide they want to go through this process that the bill before us seeks to put in place to become a Canadian citizen. They may not have spent time in the country for decades, because there is no time frame imposed for when the 1,095 days have to be taken. Exactly when is that going to impact the systems that seniors who are Canadian citizens, quite rightly, come to rely on?

If we have thousands of people or tens of thousands, which is estimated, who are going through this process later in life, they may not have paid tax. Somebody across the way was saying that, “Oh, all these people who would be impacted by the bill are almost all paying taxes in Canada already.” Well, I am not sure why that would be the case if they are not citizens of this country now and they have never lived here. Members opposite cannot provide any evidence as to how many have paid into the OAS or GIS systems or into the health care system. In fact, their own department cannot tell us how many people the bill would make eligible for Canadian citizenship. In fact, IRCC officials were questioned on that the last time the bill, in its previous form, was up for debate, and the officials could not answer that question at committee. They have no idea how many people may now be eligible, if the bill passes, to claim Canadian citizenship after having never lived here or having spent only, at the minimum, 1,095 days here over the course of their entire lives.

I am not sure how the government can claim that it has been planning this out for years and has known about this for decades. Members opposite are very aggressive about how terrible this has been and that they needed to address it. It is coming 10 years into their mandate. They have no numbers to back up how many people this may impact, what the impact on our health care system may be and what the impact on OAS and other income supports may be. Why have they not done any planning?

Canadians, particularly young Canadians, are frustrated with immigration and the fact that they cannot find an affordable home, or that when they are expecting a child they cannot get into an emergency room to get the health care they need. These are issues that are top of mind for the young Canadians and the rural Canadians who sent me here to represent them as their voice. They do not believe in a Liberal government that has failed to plan time and time again and that has brought hundreds of thousands of people into Canada without the proper planning, without that expectation, and without criminal record checks or language tests in place. My constituents, and I think many constituents of colleagues across the country, expect better planning by the Liberals.

The Conservative team is going to put forward recommendations to improve the bill, so that there are real standards for these folks to be able to prove a commitment. The member for Provencher said earlier that we believe that Canadian citizenship requires an investment in Canada. If a person has not lived here their entire life and has no intention of living here, we do not believe that is a stringent enough requirement in order to qualify for Canadian citizenship.

That is the Conservative Party's position, and we look forward to further debate with members opposite on this legislation as it moves forward.