Bill C-3

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

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

Citizenship Act

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I got the gist of my colleague's comment.

If Canadian parents who work in Geneva have a child and return to Canada, that child would be Canadian.

The question is, is that child—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The problem arises if her children are born abroad.

[Pierre Paul‑Hus]

Mr. Speaker, if she resided in the country, then yes. There is the notion of stay in the country. The difference with Bill C‑3 is the notion of having lived in the country. This is about a grandchild becoming Canadian even though their parent did not live in Canada.

I could discuss this with the member in private to clarify matters.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was around at the time we made changes, so I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on how important it is that when a superior court comes out with a ruling, there is a sense of urgency to legislation because of the ruling. Timelines have to be put in place.

What are his thoughts in regard to the whole amendment process for potential legislation? We have heard the Conservatives have concerns and may bring forward amendments. Does the member or the Conservative Party have amendments to date?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that one of the problems that caused deadlines to be pushed back and requests to pile up is that the Liberals wasted the House's time last fall by hiding all the information about the green fund. Furthermore, on January 6, former prime minister Trudeau decided to prorogue Parliament. Because the Liberals had so much trouble managing their own affairs, deadlines have now come and gone.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said and I know that he has been very involved in the Roxham Road file, which has become very problematic for Quebec. He has talked about people who decided to cross the border while there were already hundreds of people waiting in line who had followed all the proper steps to settle in Canada.

After 10 years of laxness and chaos with regard to immigration, does my colleague think it's time to clean things up and take back control over this lost immigration which has practically turned the offices of members from all parties into branches of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, as I said in my speech, there has indeed been a drastic change in how immigration is managed in this country. One of the causes was Roxham Road.

As early as 2017, when I was the official opposition critic for public safety, we asked questions about this while calling on the government to close the border and close the loophole in the safe third country agreement. We were called racist for asking them to do that. Today, it is the various communities across the country that are calling for stricter access to immigration, because it creates problems. This has had a serious impact on communities in terms of health care, schools and housing. There are communities that keep demanding that we get things under control again.

I think the Liberals have started to get it. At the same time, when I look at Bill C‑3, I am not sure they have fully understood.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some thoughts on the issue of citizenship.

The issue of citizenship and immigration has played a very important role in my political career. Since I was first elected in 1988, I became interested in the immigration file and in citizenship. They are tied together, the two of them. I have really grown to appreciate what makes Canada great. I believe it is our diversity.

If we take a look at the history of Canada, with the exception of the first nations, Inuit and Métis people, we will find that immigration has enabled Canada to be what it is today. It has been a very powerful source of growth, virtually from day one, and we have seen all forms and different waves of immigrants come to Canada in different ways. Some come for the idea of exploring. Some are individuals looking for economic opportunities to start a new life. There is a wide spectrum. Over the years, we have seen people come from every corner of the planet.

What I would like to emphasize is the degree to which people have a genuine and true appreciation of what it means to be a Canadian. I have, over the years, been to many different citizenship courts. I suspect any member of Parliament or legislature has had the opportunity to witness first-hand the importance of citizenship courts. I have participated in them in many different contexts, whether it has been in schools or health clinics. I particularly love the ones at Via Rail, the train depot, where Manitoba has received many immigrants over the years. There are public facilities like the Manitoba legislature and the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Manitoba's home, and there were many different locations within my own riding, both federally and provincially, when I was an MLA.

It did not matter where it was located. There was a very common thread that could be sewn through every one of those locations, and that was a sense of pride when a citizenship judge gets someone to say the oath, followed by the singing of the national anthem. We can sense that, even from individuals who are citizens. I, for one, will often repeat the oath, as encouraged by citizenship judges.

That can be an extremely touching moment, even for observers, let alone for an individual experiencing it first-hand and being sworn in as a Canadian citizen. That is why I attach so much value to our citizenship. I have seen first-hand hundreds of people being sworn in as Canadian citizens. I have seen the tears in their eyes, the emotions, the hugs and the general wonderful feelings in the recognition that they can now call Canada home as Canadian citizens. The singing of the national anthem, in particular, after being sworn in as Canadians gives a high sense of pride.

The issue of citizenship has been talked about at great length. When I was in opposition, I was fortunate enough to be the critic for immigration and citizenship. Whether it was in committees or in my capacity as a critic outside of Ottawa, I had the experience of being lobbied and had many discussions and debates about immigration and citizenship, what the criteria should be, how to ensure we are not just handing out citizenship and what form security checks should take. There were all sorts of discussions and debates on those issues.

I was not around when Stephen Harper made changes back in 2008. I was in the Manitoba legislature, but not here in Ottawa. Substantial changes were made back then. Those changes caused all sorts of issues that ultimately led to many Canadians being unable to receive their citizenship. We often hear about lost Canadians, and there have been attempts in the past to open up the issue and try to be more inclusive to recognize individuals for their citizenship.

I have had the opportunity to ask questions across the way in regard to the Superior Court of Ontario. Cases were being brought forward to the courts, and the Superior Court found that we needed to change the legislation, the law. The previous law that was put in place by Stephen Harper caused serious issues and denied citizenship for many Canadians. Through that process, we find ourselves here today. It was December 2023 when the Superior Court made the decision, and we have to have this matter resolved by November of this year. That is the extension that has been provided for the House of Commons to ensure that we get the legislation right.

I appreciate that when the minister was here earlier today, she talked about the details of the legislation. She afforded us the opportunity, as we all do, for questions and answers. In listening to the minister, I think one thing that stood out for me personally was her commitment to trying to get this legislation through the House by working with other members of Parliament.

As I said, we have had all sorts of discussions on this issue over the years. We have had standing committees look at it. This bill is very close, although not identical, to previous legislation that we attempted to bring through the House to try to deal with the issue at hand. It is something that does need to be dealt with. The minister made it very clear that if opposition members or government members have ideas or thoughts that would improve the quality of the legislation, she is open to hearing those thoughts and ideas.

Here we are in the dying days of June in this session, and we will come back in September. I want members to realize that the court deadline is in November, and there will be other legislation before the House. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will be building Canada's economy and making our economy the strongest in the G7. Members can anticipate seeing other substantial pieces of legislation come forward.

We know that with the way the House of Commons works, there is a limited amount of time to have debate. Bill C-3 is an important piece of legislation for a lot of people. It has an impact on real lives. I would suggest thousands of lives. We do not know a hard number because we cannot know a hard number at this stage of the game. We might be able to guesstimate, but we cannot have a hard number because we do not know what that number is going to be.

I would encourage members opposite to look at the committee as an opportunity, if members in the chamber really want some specific amendments brought forward. That is why I asked the previous speaker if they had any ideas or amendment to advance. I am not trying to put members on the spot, but we have the legislative agenda of Parliament and a limited number of days for debate. We have to get through second reading, so when is the next time this bill will likely come up again for second reading debate? We are probably talking late September or maybe October. We need to remember that the deadline is November 2025.

If members are genuine in saying they have some changes they would like to see and they promote those changes, I suggest they share those ideas or thoughts with the department or the minister directly. At times, we can work together at building and strengthening legislation. I genuinely believe the Minister of Immigration is absolutely sincere when she says that she wants to have a healthier, stronger piece of legislation. If value can be added to it and we can build consensus, then let us talk about that.

I explained it in the fashion that I did because I want members to realize that the Superior Court of Ontario's extension says the deadline is November of this year. That means that if the bill goes to committee, there will be some potential limitations or that committee is going to be sitting extra amounts of time. If there is an opportunity for opposition members to put forward a couple of amendments or things they believe would build on the legislation, at least then we would have the summer months to look at them, review them and maybe have some consultations or something of that nature, as opposed to waiting until the end of September or the beginning of October, probably at the very earliest the beginning of October, when it would pass through the House and go to the committee stage. I say that for what it is worth.

The substance of the legislation itself tries to deal with an injustice that is not only perceived but very real. In part, I am sensitive to the legislation because I served in the Canadian Forces. Even though I never served overseas, I had many friends who served overseas at the time. I like using the example of the Canadian Forces because I have first-hand experience. What happens is that individuals have families while abroad and have children. If they are Canadian citizens or naturalized, it does not really matter. When they are overseas, they have children, and those children are, no doubt, not going to have any issues in terms of being recognized as Canadian citizens. That is the way it should be.

I believe the world is a whole lot smaller today than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. More and more, there are Canadians throughout the world. I suspect we would find very few major cities in the G20 that would not have some sort of link to Canadians. That provides a great deal of value to all of us. When Canadians—

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I would like to know what time the Adjournment Proceedings will be occurring today.

[The Acting Speaker, Bardish Chagger]

That is not a point of order.

We will go back to the member.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, is that the best he could come up with? I must say I am a little disappointed in the member. We are talking about the importance of citizenship, and he wants to know what time the adjournment is. If he has other procedural questions of that nature, he might want to go to the table, where he will get answers directly, as opposed to being, I would suggest, somewhat rude and interrupting a train of thought that might be taking place.

As I was indicating, the world is a much smaller place. We should be very encouraged by the number of Canadians who live abroad, because we actually benefit from that. The Prime Minister has talked about how Canada is going to be able to grow our economy, respond to Donald Trump's trade tariffs and build Canada as the strongest nation in the G7. I would suggest this is one of the ways we could see it happen.

I will give a tangible example of that. I was in the Philippines back in December, and I had the opportunity to meet with a number of people who have direct links to Canada through citizenship and who do business in the Philippines. At the beginning of my comments, I talked about the diversity of Canada. When we think of the diversity of Canada, it is not just the whole multicultural aspect of our society and how we reflect the globe, but there are different ways we can take advantage of that diversity. One of those ways is through trade.

When someone starts to put limitations in place to the degree the Harper administration did, we put more limits on Canada's potential, our diversity and our ability to be a very strong and healthy country going forward, or even throughout our history.

Many members of Parliament have the opportunity to travel to different countries. Often, when in another country, we meet individuals at stores, trade shows or at conferences who talk about their roots back to Canada. It does not matter whether it is India, the Philippines or many of the other countries throughout the world, why would we not want to be more inclusive?

More importantly, for the sake of argument on this particular piece of legislation, why would we not be listening to the Superior Court of Ontario, which has made it very clear there are issues with the passing down of citizenship? The legislation talks about a sustainable connection. The number of 1,095 is not a number that is just pulled out of the blue sky. It is a very real number being used for permanent residents today. If someone is in Canada for 1,095 days in a five-year period of time, they are eligible to become a Canadian citizen.

At the end of the day, I believe we should at the very least get behind this legislation and see it go to the committee stage because of the November 2025 deadline. Failing that happening, I would really encourage members opposite to come forward and share what amendments or ideas they have. I suspect there might be some good ones there, and we can look at ways we might be able to incorporate them. We do not need to wait until the committee is actually meeting in order to share thoughts and ideas, especially when we have a minister who is so committed to working with members of the House in order for Bill C-3 to pass, ultimately before the deadline, for the benefit of all Canadians and those who—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently for the last few minutes, and the member opposite asked for any suggestions or amendments. One of the things I would like to put forward is that in this legislation, Bill C-3, there is no talk of any background or security checks for any of these people who could be getting clearance and citizenship to come to Canada. I wonder if the Liberals feel that maybe it is a good idea to include that in this bill, going forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the thing I would say to my friend across the way is that if we do nothing, if the legislation does not pass, then we would have the Ontario Superior Court ruling take effect, and we would have individuals then putting in their applications and getting their citizenship without any background checks. As such, there is the idea of getting the legislation into committee and looking at possible amendments. As I say, some might get through, depending on whether they are amendments that would actually give strength to the legislation.

I am going to bring it back to the time issue. The time issue, I think, is of critical importance.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what injustice this bill is remedying. Let me give another example. I will speak slowly so my colleague can give me the right answer.

I would like to talk about the case of Jean-François. His father was born abroad. Jean-François was born abroad when his father was doing his Ph.D. in the United States. Despite the fact that he came to Quebec at the age of three months, grew up and lived his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was unable to get automatic citizenship.

Does Bill C‑3 correct that injustice? If so, under what conditions? If not, why?