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

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech on this bill reminded me of a citizenship ceremony that took place a few years ago in Deux‑Montagnes, in my riding. When people get their citizenship, it is a very emotional moment. People are happy to become Canadians.

What does my colleague think of this bill? Does he not think that it should be referred directly to committee?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, citizenship ceremonies are very emotional, as I said in my speech, and they are very important in the lives of the folks who are obtaining their citizenship on that day.

I certainly believe that this bill needs to be studied a lot further. I hope the member opposite will speak to her colleagues in the Liberal Party to seriously consider amendments that we will be putting forward for this legislation, because as it stands right now, we cannot support the legislation. We agree with some of the points, as I said. We agree with recognizing lost citizens and we agree with adopted children obtaining their citizenship right away. However, we do not agree and will never agree with giving people who are not born in this country the right to perpetual Canadian citizenship without having contributed to our country.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing a fantastic job.

I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech today, especially the heartwarming tale of his adopted children.

The Liberal government itself even admits that it has broken the immigration system. Its own immigration website states that concern about immigration is at the highest level it has been in two decades. The government notes that it is tied to concerns about the impact on housing and public services.

Considering the government does not even know how many people this bill would affect, does my colleague think that it would increase or alleviate concerns about how badly the Liberals have bungled the immigration file?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that the legislation, as it has been presented by the Minister of Immigration, would make things a lot worse if passed. It would continue to get worse as long as government members keep playing musical chairs in the tired Liberal government. There have been seven different immigration ministers in a 10-year period.

The government is not looking at the file seriously and this is, I would argue, a very important file for Canadians across the country, especially newcomers and immigrants who have worked so hard to obtain that right to come into our country and have done everything in the right way to obtain their citizenship. This legislation would continue to exacerbate the problems and make them a lot worse than they are today.

We are here to hold the government to account. Hopefully, the government will come on board with us to make this a better piece of legislation so that we can pass it through the House unanimously at some point.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have spent all day criticizing the broken immigration system, and that is fair enough. We feel the same way and agree with their criticism. However, was it worth spending an entire day debating the principle of a bill that basically poses few problems? My colleague believes so.

Given that my colleague identified some things that he agreed with and others that he did not, are we to understand that, when it comes time to pass this bill in principle, the Conservatives would be against sending this bill to committee and would rather appeal the Superior Court ruling?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we want to study the bill. We want to propose amendments to the bill that would make it a better piece of legislation. We have spent one day on it. It appears that the member has an issue with our spending all day on it. I would argue that it is not enough because the long-term ramifications of passing through a bad piece of legislation like this could be catastrophic for the immigration system and for Canada.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

As we debate Bill C-3 today, we go back to the basics of what it means to be Canadian. We are not a postnational state, as my colleagues across the aisle would love us to believe. Canadians exist from coast to coast to coast. There are a great variety of experiences that make up our Canadian identity, but they are bounded within our great landmass. Canadian citizenship means something. It has weight in this world. For it to continue to have weight, there must be a cost. Nothing that is free continues to have any worth, any weight or any merit.

The Conservatives want nothing more than to preserve and increase the value of Canadian citizenship. We value and respect what it means to be a Canadian. The basic cost that Conservatives want to maintain in the price of Canadian citizenship is for there to be a continued connection to Canada. Unfortunately, my dear colleagues across the aisle do not value their peers who live coast to coast to coast. My most esteemed colleagues across the aisle would rather cheapen the value of our Canadian identity by siding with Canadians of convenience.

Let me repeat that concept one more time but more slowly: Canadians of convenience. Are these our brothers and sisters in arms? When push comes to shove in our fracturing global order, can we count on these Canadians of convenience to advance our national interests alongside us, or are they just people who would love to have a Canadian passport?

Bill C-3 would cheapen what it means to be a Canadian, and it would extend citizenship by descent beyond the first generation. In 2009, we, the Conservatives, enforced a first-generation limit. However, under Bill C-3, any person born abroad to a Canadian citizen who has also been born abroad would receive Canadian citizenship. In other words, the children of children born outside of Canada would be considered Canadian.

Before we critique this, it is important to note that the Liberals have made a conditional requirement of what they call a “substantial connection”. This requirement would allow parents to pass Canadian citizenship onto their children generation after generation as long as one parent spends only 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada prior to the birth of the child.

That is just three years of non-consecutive time in Canada, and there is no need for a criminal record check. Merely three years of non-consecutive time is absolutely too low a standard to establish anyone as a fellow Canadian. At the absolute minimum, the three years should be consecutive and there should be a criminal record check. Without these absolute minimum standards, there can be no progress on this bill.

The goal of the Conservatives is simple: We want to foster generations of Canadians with a national spirit and who feel themselves to be truly Canadian. There is no way to do this unless they live here with us as fellow Canadians for some degree of time. This is why their presence in Canada has to be sustained and consecutive so that they live, learn and work beside their fellow Canadians.

If Bill C-3 passes in its current state, how is it fair to legitimate immigrants who spend years building lives here, from coast to coast to coast, when the Liberal government is ready to give citizenship to people who have never even lived in Canada for a sustained period? The government has cheapened what it means to be Canadian. We will all suffer for it.

With that established, let us quickly address what Bill C-3 could be, if it was precise and focused. The core historical problem we should be addressing is what has been framed as “lost Canadians”. These are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it, or thought they were entitled to Canadian citizenship but never received it. This was the original issue Conservatives gave support for and for which we will continue to give support. Historically, citizenship has been revoked due to issues like restrictions on dual citizenship or a child not being registered after being born abroad.

Section 8 of the Citizenship Act says all individuals born abroad to Canadian parents after February 14, 1977, had to apply to reinstate their Canadian citizenship before they turned 28 years old. In short, Conservatives wanted to restore citizenship to individuals who had lost it due to non-application for retention or application rejections under the former Citizenship Act, section 8. Some individuals lost citizenship at the age of 28. These generally included people born as the second generation abroad between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, who turned 28. This was also the original content of Conservative Senator Yonah Martin's private member's bill, Bill S-245, which plays a more direct role in addressing concerns about the first-generation rule.

What I want to emphasize is how specific the problem was and how tailored the solution could be. What we have instead, with Bill C-3, is the use of this originally narrow problem of lost Canadians to spearhead broad, sweeping changes to the fundamentals of Canadian citizenship. Conservatives truly, fully support the provisions that relate to lost Canadians, but we cannot allow the pretext of solving the lost Canadians issue to lead to a sweeping change in what it means to be Canadian.

With this little historical background out of the way, let us return to considering Bill C-3 as a whole. The debate on Bill C-3 boils down to one simple question: What does it mean to be a Canadian? Ultimately, do we truly value what it means to live from coast to coast to coast, or does place have no meaning?

I have often heard culture defined as a way of life, and a way of life is something learned by doing, learned beside people who are doing it. In this way, citizenship is like a trade, and it requires apprenticeship. To apprentice as a Canadian, one must live in Canada beside Canadians and learn a way of life over several consecutive years.

However, in the current state of Bill C-3, the Liberals want to serve Canadians of convenience who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society. Bill C-3 serves Canadians of convenience, but does it serve Canadians?

Only common-sense Conservatives will restore order to immigration and citizenship. We will restore integrity to citizenship by tightening requirements, because this is how we preserve the value of what it means to be Canadian.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑3 is intended to right a past wrong. In 2009, Stephen Harper's Conservative government passed legislation limiting citizenship by descent to the first generation. This has had significant repercussions. Individuals with genuine ties to our country have been excluded. It has also negatively affected Canadians whose children were born abroad.

In 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down these provisions, and we did not appeal that decision, given the unacceptable consequences these provisions had had.

Will my colleague work with us and support this bill, which will right a past wrong?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague responded earlier with the same answer, which is that we will support the bill with the amendments we are proposing to address specific issues and to not broaden the overall Citizenship Act to allow generations and generations abroad. If these people really have intentions of being Canadian, it is easy for them to do so and still apply those rules. To my colleague, I say the Conservatives will support it with the amendments we are proposing.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague. Maybe he was not here in the last Parliament, but the government's management of immigration was mediocre.

The influx of migrants into Quebec placed tremendous pressure on our health care system and social services, but Quebec was not paid back in full. Would my colleague not agree that this is a gross injustice?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely part of the problem. We have been asking the Liberal government, in terms of numbers, how many people would be impacted, and the answer is that the Liberals do not know. We asked how much it would cost us, and they do not know. Again, how is it going to impact each of the provinces, including Quebec? They obviously do not know that answer either.

What is the government doing putting a bill forward without having prepared for the consequences and impact of such a bill being implemented?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the member's speech. In particular, at the start of it, he was talking about the issue of Canadians of convenience. When I meet with people back home, especially people who have immigrated to Canada, they had to work hard. They had to prove they were solvent and had the means to be able to be a contributing member of society.

When we look at the bill, we see what the Liberals are doing with what it means to become a Canadian citizen. They have really cheapened what it takes to become a Canadian citizen. I am just wondering if my colleague has any thoughts on what the Liberals are doing with the bill in really cheapening what it takes and what it means to become Canadian.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do, per my speech. It used to mean something to be a Canadian, to be carrying that Canadian passport and feeling safe around the world, carrying that passport and knowing that it is respected. By cheapening this passport, it becomes almost like something we could get from online sales.

As I said in my speech, what does it mean to be a Canadian, to understand and know our values, to have lived with Canadian colleagues and friends in Canada and to understand our culture and understand our way of life? We would be giving out and granting citizenship for generation after generation of people, some of whom perhaps, as the colleague across the aisle admitted, may not even have the intention of wanting to be Canadian. This legislation would allow them to do so.

In terms of the other point that the member raised, very rightly, when we talk about the broken immigration system, we have a lot of people who came into the country under the pathways program, especially over—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Today, that honour comes with a sense of duty to speak clearly and seriously about the need to uphold the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

Let me begin by saying clearly and unequivocally, Conservatives support the court's decision in Bjorkquist v. Canada. Conservatives believe in the rule of law, and Conservatives believe that unjustifiable discrimination has no place in Canadian citizenship policy.

The court found the first-generation limit to be unconstitutional, and I respect that judgment, but Bill C-3 is not simply a thoughtful response to a court decision. It is a wholesale rewrite of citizenship policy that goes far beyond the scope of the ruling.

This bill is not about justice. It is about judgment. In this case, the government's judgment is deeply flawed, stretching far beyond what most Canadians would consider to be reasonable.

Let us talk about what is in the bill. Under Bill C-3, Canadian citizenship could be automatically passed down for multiple generations born outside of Canada, so long as just one parent has spent just 1,095 non-consecutive days, or three years of non-consecutive days, at any time in their life, on Canadian soil.

As an example, it would allow the 50-year-old child of a 75-year-old who left Canada at age 3 to claim Canadian citizenship even if that 50-year-old had never been to Canada. Let us be clear, that is not a strong connection to Canada. That is not growing up here, working here, paying taxes here, or raising a family here. It is not even vacationing here.

There are many other ridiculous examples. Vacations, work trips and conferences would all count. Getting stranded in Canada while in transit from one country to another because a snowstorm grounds their connecting flight would count as a night. I could go on.

The bottom line is that this bill would make a number of people with minimal or no exposure to Canada eligible for Canadian citizenship ad infinitum, and IRCC could not tell the committee how many people this could be. Unlike many of the programs Canadians have to navigate, there would be no proof required. If one were willing to swear an affidavit that their parent spent 1,095 days here, the government would take their word for it. No boarding passes, holiday pictures, or receipts for poutine or perhaps maple-cured salmon would be required. What could go wrong?

Members do not need to take my word for it. Let us hear from some of the experts. We have heard repeatedly from experts with concerns about the bill. This is not actually a partisan issue. It is a policy issue. It is about what it means to be Canadian. It is about what a substantial connection is. It is about how we spend the half trillion dollars the Liberal government is proposing we approve without a budget. It is about whether people with no connection to Canada can suddenly discover their parents' Canadian roots when times get tough or they decide they would like to live somewhere else.

We have a refugee program, and we have an immigration program. This is neither. This bill does an end run around those programs and would allow an ill-defined, undetermined number of people to jump the line without having to prove their value or show their work.

We support correcting past injustices. We support restoring citizenship to real lost Canadians, those caught in the bureaucratic net of outdated provisions, such as the former section 8 of the old Citizenship Act. These are people who were raised in Canada, have lived their lives as Canadians and who were denied the rights and privileges of citizenship due to paperwork or legislative gaps. They are Canadians in every meaningful sense, and they deserve to be treated as such.

We also support the provisions regarding adopted children, which would ensure children adopted abroad, like those of my colleague who spoke earlier, are treated equally under the law and are able to pass on citizenship in the same way as biological children.

This is a matter of fairness and equality. We have always backed those provisions, and we continue to support them now, but what we cannot and will not support is a system that waters down the meaning of citizenship and creates an unmanageable administrative burden on already strained government services.

Let us look at the numbers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that Bill C-3 could immediately add about 115,000 new citizens, most of whom do not live in Canada, yet the government has provided no estimate for how many could be added in the long term as new generations become eligible. These new citizens would be eligible for services like old age security, GIS and health services, yet many of them would never have paid a single dollar of income tax in Canada.

The government has admitted that it has not completed a proper cost analysis. In committee hearings, IRCC officials acknowledge that they simply do not know how many people the bill would affect or what the long-term financial implications would be. That is not good governance or responsible legislation; it is just recklessness, and it is particularly troubling given the state of our public services today: Canadians are waiting weeks for passports, months for citizenship applications and years for permanent residency; housing is unaffordable; and health care is stretched to the brink. Resources are finite, and the bill would do nothing to prioritize those already in Canada who need help.

This is the bottom line: The so-called “substantial connection test” in the bill is vague and inadequate, 1,095 non-consecutive days can be spread across decades and attested to without proof, there is no requirement for a criminal record check and there is no clear plan on how IRCC would verify or process the influx of new applicants.

Conservatives are proposing simple, reasonable amendments to the bill: Make the 1,095 days consecutive, and disqualify those with serious criminal records. These are common-sense safeguards, and the government should accept them and adopt them as its own, as they have with many of our other policies.

The Court gave the government a mandate to act but not to overreach. What Canadians need, expect and deserve is a balanced approach, one that upholds the charter and fixes past wrongs but preserves the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 does not strike that balance in its current form.

Canadian citizenship is an incredible thing. It is more than just a legal status; it is a profound connection to one of the most free, diverse and democratic nations in the world. It reflects a shared commitment to values that define Canada: respect for human rights, the rule of law and pluralism.

For millions, becoming a Canadian citizen is the fulfillment of a dream, and for those of us lucky enough to be born into it, it is a privilege that we should never take for granted. The bill would create a slippery slope where citizenship would no longer be tied to a meaningful presence or a substantial connection to Canada. It risks transforming Canadian citizenship from a living commitment into a legacy entitlement, something passed down with little or no connection to our land, our laws or our culture.

It is worth remembering why the first-generation limit was introduced in the first place. After the 2006 crisis in Lebanon, Canada evacuated 14,000 citizens at a cost of $94 million. Thousands returned to Lebanon shortly thereafter. That experience led to the realization that citizenship must come with responsibilities, not just rights. That is why a Conservative government enacted the first-generation limit in 2009, to restore integrity to our system. Bill C-3 goes far beyond correcting the unintentional oversights of that policy that were properly identified by the courts. It unacceptably rewrites the framework of Canadian citizenship in a way that undermines its integrity, dilutes its value and ignores the need for a balanced and principled approach.

Let me close by saying this: Conservatives believe in a strong, fair and principled citizenship regime, and that is what we would like to see in the bill.