Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I know that all members appreciate the sacrifice that firefighters, first responders and nurses have—
Lena Metlege Diab Liberal
In committee (Senate), as of Nov. 6, 2025
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-3.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s adoption;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and
(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-3s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-3 amends the Citizenship Act to address inconsistencies regarding citizenship by descent for Canadians born abroad, requiring a substantial connection to Canada.
Liberal
Conservative
Bloc
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I know that all members appreciate the sacrifice that firefighters, first responders and nurses have—
Citizenship ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I am sorry, but there is no unanimous consent.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
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.
Citizenship ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
We have a point of order from the member for Cariboo—Prince George.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions behind the scenes, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent—
Citizenship ActGovernment Orders
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my speech.
I do not even need my notes to talk about this bill anymore. As I was saying, we worked hard in committee. We did our job as parliamentarians. Our work was thorough and amendments were adopted by the majority of committee members. Those amendments made this bill better than it was when it was referred to the committee.
The party currently in power has formed a minority government, yet it is behaving like a majority government. The government keeps telling us that it received a strong mandate from the people. It received a minority mandate. Perhaps it should be aware of that. Today the government is presenting the budget, and it should be doubly aware of that fact.
I assume that I will continue my speech after question period, since I have not finished yet.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), be read the third time and passed.
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.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I want to be sensitive to the argument the member put forward. When we think of the standing committee, a total of 169 Liberal MPs and a combined total of 166 Bloc members and Conservatives are represented at the committee. The committee ultimately made changes, but it did not get support from the New Democrat members. If it had gotten their support, the Liberals would have outnumbered.
It is a good thing to see the work that standing committees do. If members work with the government, they can often get amendments passed. We have seen numerous amendments pass previously.
I am wondering if the member could provide his support for the democratic principle that the largest number of MPs should ultimately prevail, in particular on this legislation.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears. If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a tractor. “If” can be used to preface any statement. The member opposite has just told me that if there had been New Democratic members on the committee, things might have been different. Yes, but if there had been 78 Bloc Québécois members from Quebec, things might also have been different. If Maxime Bernier had gotten 54 members elected to the House, things might also have been different.
The member is saying that if the NDP were a recognized party, things might have been different. Is that the way we do politics here? He is saying that if there had been more New Democratic members, things would turned out differently.
Fred Davies Conservative Niagara South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean would comment on what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader told us at second reading. He said to bring the legislation to committee and bring forward legislative changes and amendments that will make the bill better.
How many weeks did we spend on it? We spent two months debating the bill, refining it and bringing forward rational, reasonable and acceptable amendments, yet as the parliamentary secretary said, we did not get the NDP onside. The NDP does not sit in committee. It did not make a presentation. We have no idea what its point of view was. We now come back here, and the government has thrown out all that work and is saying we are going back to the beginning.
I wonder how the hon. member feels about that.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
That is an excellent question, Mr. Speaker
I would remind members that that same colleague just told us that had there been more members, it would have been in the committee. He has a fascinating way of looking at politics. I would also remind members that that same colleague told us to bring amendments at second reading, that the committee would work on the bill, and that we would reach consensus on this piece of legislation.
That same colleague is now telling us to throw out all the work done at committee as well as all the amendments adopted by the majority of committee members because, as he put it, had there been more members from another party, things would not have turned out this way. It is such sheer madness that one can only laugh.