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.

The House resumed from Thursday, June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship Act

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course it would be hard to begin this new parliamentary session without wishing everyone, including those watching at home, a warm welcome back. The summer was particularly beautiful in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I think it was important for many of us to practice self-care after the year we had. That did not prevent some family trips, including to the Quebec Games, and a trip to the north shore for us. I think it was important to do some self-care and I hope everyone was able to do that.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the passing this summer of two of our icons. Léandre Bergeron is known for his bread, but also for the whole encyclopedia representing the core values of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Quebec. I want to pay tribute to him. There was also the great painter Norbert Lemire, my great-uncle, who was a significant figure in my life. If my colleagues ever have the opportunity to see one of his paintings, I think they will find his style very unique.

I am very pleased to be back in the House to speak to Bill C-3, which aims to correct an injustice affecting many children born abroad to Quebec and Canadian parents. This is one bill that makes sense to me. It will enable these lost Quebeckers and Canadians to regain their citizenship. This bill reponds a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court, which invalidated provisions of the Citizenship Act that violated certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Say, for example, that a Canadian couple works for the government abroad and has a child in another country. Let us say they name her Caroline. The law says that even if Caroline grows up in Canada, if she gets a job abroad and has a child, that child cannot be a Canadian citizen. The situation is a bit complicated and it does not need to be. However, it shows that even though these situations are quite rare, they are still possible. It is not right, and it needs to be corrected.

This bill rectifies that situation by allowing the transfer of citizenship if the parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, in other words, that they have lived in Canada continuously or intermittently for a period of 1,095 days, or three years. This type of change is helpful, particularly for many diplomats who may have to live abroad while representing Quebec or Canada. This bill corrects an injustice that could have affected them down the road.

What is more, Bill C-3 also rights injustices for other lost Canadians, such as those born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981. At that time, as a result of amendments made to the Citizenship Act in 1977, individuals who wished to obtain Canadian citizenship by descent had to apply for it before the age of 28. Whoever failed to apply would lose their citizenship. This little-known requirement meant that some individuals lost their citizenship. Imagine how a person would feel if they went to apply for a passport only to find out that they were no longer a Canadian citizen, even though their family has been living here for generations. Of course, that is a rather dramatic example, but these individuals became stateless and had to go through a complicated process to prove that they are, in fact, Canadian.

The other change introduced by this important bill is to allow Canadian women who married non-Canadian men before 1947 to regain their Canadian citizenship. In fact, these women lost their citizenship when they married. Their situation is very similar to the experience of many indigenous women, an important issue that Parliament studied in the past before restoring the status of indigenous women who decided to marry non-indigenous men. In a way, it was characteristic of the sexist policies of that time. Bill C‑3 corrects an unacceptable situation and takes a step forward toward restoring gender equality, a value that I and Bloc Québécois members in this House hold in the highest regard.

The last group of people to have their status corrected under Bill C‑3 are children born abroad, who were adopted but whose parent died, and who were subsequently denied citizenship. Simply put, these changes are beneficial, now and in the future, in helping to address absurd situations arising from various oversights at different points in time. This bill rectifies those situations.

The Bloc Québécois believes it might be worthwhile to overhaul this legislation in the future to clarify some of its provisions, since it is still causing real headaches. I would remind the House that this is the fourth change that has been made in the past 25 years to correct the injustices against many people who have lost their citizenship because of obscure, unfair or discriminatory rules.

For example, in the 1947 legislation, in a clause that has since been corrected, Quebec citizens born abroad were required to spend their 24th year in Canada. In other words, if they arrived here at age 25, they lost their citizenship. The second update to this legislation was made 30 years later. Some changes have made it easier to access citizenship, but, again, some aspects of this legislation have created awful situations, including the ones I mentioned earlier, where Quebeckers and Canadians who obtained their citizenship by descent had to apply to keep their status before age 28. This part of the legislation was corrected in 2009, but only for Canadians who were not yet 28 at the time. Today, this bill will correct that major omission.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work of someone with whom I used to work closely. I am talking about my former parliamentary assistant and, more importantly, the former member of Parliament for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Meili Faille. She and the Bloc Québécois undertook the enormous task of compiling an inventory of problems relating to citizenship in the 2000s. Under her leadership, the top experts from across Canada worked on those two studies, which many of my colleagues have cited during the proceedings. We must also highlight the work of Don and Brenda Chapman, whom I salute, as I am sure they are watching. Their work has been crucial in enabling many Quebec and Canadian citizens to regain their citizenship. As a result of their efforts, we learned that, due to obscure and complex rules at the time, General Roméo Dallaire, who was a senator and one of the greatest Canadians and Quebeckers who made us so proud, did not even have Canadian citizenship. This shows the importance of the work we are doing today.

Later on, numerous reforms were carried out to fix some of the problems that were being created by the Citizenship Act. These reforms, from 2005, 2009 and 2015, made it possible to resolve a number of situations. This means that the Citizenship Act, which was drafted in 1947, has not undergone a substantial review since that time. However, there is no law as important to a country as its citizenship law. The world has changed since 1947. Although some amendments were made in 1977, the fact remains that it may be time to sit down and review this important piece of legislation in order to make it clear what Canada is hoping to achieve in terms of citizenship. The definition of citizenship is at the core of what makes up a country. Canada has a responsibility to its citizens, whether they live here in Quebec or Canada or abroad.

During the pandemic, my office worked day and night to bring people from Abitibi—Témiscamingue home because they were stranded in various countries around the world. Our role as MPs is, first and foremost, to help our constituents and fellow citizens. I think it is worth emphasizing how important it is for Parliament to review the Citizenship Act. It may not be the most exciting topic, but it is perhaps one of the most important, because it forms the basis for defining our rights at a time when defining our identity and who we are is more important than ever.

I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill because it restores the citizenship that Quebeckers and Canadians have lost. I hope that this debate will lead us to begin the important work of reviewing citizenship, and so much the better if we begin our work with a consensus bill, because we have had enough squabbling in the House in recent years.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome back all members.

During the summer, one of the experiences I had was regarding legislation in general, whether it is Bill C-3 or other pieces of legislation. I found that, whether it is with members of the Conservative Party or other political entities, there is a great sense that the government has to work with the opposition and that the opposition needs to work with the government in passing legislation to ensure that we are doing what is in the best interest of all Canadians.

I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts, as we go into the fall session, on the expectation his constituents have to look at legislation objectively and look at ways we can deliver for Canadians by co-operating more this fall.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is really great to see the member for Winnipeg North again. Too bad his question is a bit off topic. However, it is customary when Parliament resumes to accept such questions. I will accept this suggestion to work collaboratively and effectively. I know we are in politics, but sometimes we have to be collaborative.

I would like to note that yesterday there was a big announcement promising to build 4,000 housing units. Prefabricated houses are great, but the Liberal government is once again focusing only on large urban centres.

Regions like Abitibi‑Témiscamingue are being left out. Back home we have two companies that build prefab houses and a third that contributes to the effort. We are able to provide what it takes. What is more, we have a great need for housing.

I invite hon. members to look beyond politics and think about all Canadians and Quebeckers. How the land is used is an important consideration that is often forgotten. The same goes for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the member.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see my colleague again.

On the substance of Bill C-3, I know that language rights are very important to him. Does he believe that this bill should reflect the fact that anybody obtaining citizenship through the bill should have to reach the same level, at a minimum, of language proficiency as somebody obtaining citizenship through a different path, that those language requirements should be harmonized?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is also nice for me to see the member for Calgary Nose Hill again.

She is right. The notion of fairness in a society is an important issue. We are being asked, in broad terms, what citizenship should look like. Obviously, I believe that all immigration powers should be transferred to Quebec so that Quebec can manage the language issue.

This summer, the ridings were caught up in a kind of ping-pong game. I do not know whether such was the case for all members of the House, but in my riding, dozens and dozens of people, spouses from abroad and foreign students, were stuck in the system. Right now, the immigration application process is a total mess, and the wait times are horrendous. These people are not numbers. They are individuals who want to come live in Canada, settle here and live here with us. We need to think about them.

That being said, language is definitely something I care a lot about. People need to be able to communicate if they are going to live together.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in this place after the summer break.

Today, we are discussing immigration. However, the unemployment rate in this country is clearly a serious problem. The Conservatives say that the Liberal government's immigration policies and inefficiency are partly to blame for the unemployment rate.

I am curious to know what the Bloc Québécois thinks about the connection between problems with the immigration system that were created by the Liberal government and the unemployment rate.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, whom I thank, is attacking me in a power play with his questions this morning. I will answer, considering that our time is limited.

Quebec has done more than its share when it comes to taking in refugees. A fair balance is missing on that score. I encourage Ottawa to set things straight and ensure that each province can do its fair share and take in the same number of refugees.

I think that drawing a link between immigration and the unemployment rate is a slippery slope. I urge my Conservative colleagues to be careful in that regard.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back after some time with family and in our own ridings. It is wonderful to see everybody.

Our Canadian identity is rooted in our shared values and our deep connection to this country. With our Canadian citizenship, we are granted rights and responsibilities. Our Canadian citizenship guarantees fundamental freedoms, such as conscience and expression. It ensures democratic rights, mobility rights and legal protections. Citizenship is not just about the rights that we inherit. It is also about the responsibilities we accept, such as respecting the laws of this land, contributing to our communities and upholding the values that make Canada strong and free.

As members of Parliament, it is our duty to strengthen and uphold the value of Canadian citizenship, to ensure that it remains a privilege earned through a genuine connection to the country, which in turn fosters a lasting commitment to Canada. Unfortunately, Bill C-3, in its current form, would not safeguard or strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. In fact, by creating an endless chain of citizenship passed down without meaningful connection, it would risk devaluing what it means to be Canadian.

To be clear, granting Canadian citizenship to adopted children of Canadian citizens born abroad is a positive step. It would ensure that adopted children would be treated as equal to biological children, as they should be. That is a principle I have been quite vocal on. Colleagues in the House who served in the previous Parliament will recall that I put forward a bill to ensure equal access to EI and parental leave for adoptive and intended parents. It is an inequity that unfortunately remains unresolved as the government continues to drag its feet on the issue.

Likewise, restoring citizenship to lost Canadians is a necessary correction. These are individuals with deep, undeniable connections to the country, and many of them were raised in Canada. They went to school here, worked here, paid taxes here and built lives here. Because they failed to apply to retain their citizenship before the age of 28, their citizenship was stripped away. In many cases, they did not even know it happened, as the requirement was never properly communicated.

When the previous Conservative government repealed that rule in 2009, a small group born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, were left behind. By any reasonable measure, these individuals are Canadians, and this should be corrected. A previous Conservative bill from the other place sought to do exactly that. It was a targeted, measured solution to restore citizenship to lost Canadians.

Rather than pass that bill, the Liberal government delayed it. It then introduced a flawed and far broader bill, Bill C-71, which has now been recycled and presented as Bill C-3 in this Parliament. Bill C-3, in its current form, would reopen the door to Canadians of convenience. It would create a pathway for unlimited, multi-generational citizenship to individuals with no meaningful connection to Canada.

It would do this by removing the first-generation limit and replacing it with an incredibly weak substantial connection test. The first-generation limit was a safeguard that was introduced by the previous Conservative government. It ensured that citizenship could not be endlessly passed down to generations born and living outside of Canada with no real ties to the country.

This policy was not introduced without reason. It followed the 2006 Lebanon crisis, when thousands of people with little or no connection to Canada suddenly claimed citizenship in order to be evacuated. That effort cost taxpayers $94 million, not including the other benefits that were accessed afterwards. Most of the evacuated returned to Lebanon shortly after. They had no lasting ties to Canada.

That incident raised serious concerns and legitimate questions about the integrity of our citizenship and what responsibilities the Government of Canada should uphold. The first-generation limit was a reasonable and necessary measure to address the issue of Canadians of convenience. It ensured that those inheriting Canadian citizenship have close ties to Canada that are not far removed. It helps prevent people from claiming the rights and privileges of citizenship without accepting its responsibilities.

Significant ties to Canada can show a strong connection to our country, but the bill's requirement of just 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada before the child's birth weakens the guarantee of a strong connection. Under this change, families can live outside Canada for generations and still pass on citizenship as long as the parent has spent about three years in Canada at some point. This so-called substantial connection is not substantial at all. It also does not require a criminal background check for those claiming citizenship, opening the door for dangerous individuals to gain it automatically. This policy change devalues the significance of Canadian citizenship.

Let us not ignore the fact that the bill creates a two-tier immigration system. On one side, there will be foreign-born individuals who have never lived in Canada, and who may have no intention of living in Canada or contributing to our country, yet they could gain citizenship simply because a parent spent a few months here and there in Canada years ago.

On the other side, there are hard-working newcomers, who actually live and work in Canada, who face strict requirements. They must follow timelines, meet residency rules, and pass language and knowledge tests. They certainly must pass a security assessment, which we all know can be quite a lengthy process. They must prove their commitment to Canadian society before they can become citizens.

This proposed policy change is unfair. It is chain migration without merit. It is a two-tier immigration system, where those who have no attachment to Canada would gain the same rights as those who worked hard to earn their citizenship. This undermines the value of citizenship and the efforts of genuine immigrants.

Another major concern is that we have no clear idea how many people would become eligible under this policy change. A massive influx of new citizens would put significant strain on government resources and come at a cost to Canadian taxpayers. The government has not done a clear cost analysis on this policy. What impact would this have on our already strained social services? Canadians are rightly frustrated that public services, such as health care, pensions and housing, could be further stretched by a surge of new citizens living abroad who have never contributed to our country, not to mention the extra workload that this would create for government departments processing citizenship applications. This would once again disadvantage those applying to Canada who have shown a genuine and legitimate connection to this country.

Canadian citizenship must be fair, secure and meaningful. It should be earned through genuine connection, responsibility and respect for our country. Becoming a Canadian citizen means more than just receiving rights and privileges. It requires a deep commitment to Canada's future and the responsibilities that come with citizenship.

As parliamentarians, we must oppose policies that cheapen the value of our citizenship. We must stand firm for integrity, security and responsible immigration policies. While the bill includes some important elements, like restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and ensuring equal treatment for adopted children, it is neither a measured nor a targeted policy. Instead, it opens the door wide open for our citizenship to be abused as a citizenship of convenience. It is reckless. The lack of a required security screening is deeply concerning. The potential cost to taxpayers is significant, and the added strain on an already overstretched government's resources and public programs is alarming.

This bill requires significant amendments, yet it is hard to believe that will happen given the government has failed to make these necessary changes before reintroducing it this Parliament. The integrity of our Canadian citizenship and our national identity cannot be taken lightly. As elected members of the House, it is our responsibility to uphold and strengthen what it means to be a Canadian citizen.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very nice to see you back in the House, and I welcome my colleagues as well.

I want to take this opportunity to ask my colleague a question, based off of her comments, as she did talk about the measures that were adopted in 2009. Many of these measures were deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Court of Justice, so this is not the first time the bill has come to the House. It has come back because there had to be some changes made to the bill. We have made those changes, and the Conservatives supported those changes.

Why are the Conservatives misleading Canadians once again on what we are actually talking about? They told lost Canadians in the last session that they would pass the bill. Why are they arguing this to be something that it is really not?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, what I mentioned was that the bill had been reintroduced. The Liberals rejected the amendments proposed by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament. This bill was reintroduced by the Liberals unchanged, without taking any of those amendments into consideration.

Given the very first question that opened Parliament from the member for Winnipeg North talked about working collaboratively, this would be a great example, if this happens to go to committee, for amendments to be taken seriously, debated and voted on to strengthen the bill.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair. It is great to be back. It is always interesting: The Liberals break something, and they blame everyone else for the accident and for breaking it.

I want to thank our hon. colleague for her thoughtful presentation and intervention today. I have two questions: Does the government have any idea how many people would be granted citizenship automatically if the legislation passes? Has the government put forth any suggestions or details regarding the information and the evidence that would be required to prove the 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, there has been no cost analysis. The Liberals do not know the scope, so we do not know how much this would cost the government, a.k.a. the Canadian taxpayers. Also, we do not have the information on the 1,095 nonconsecutive days that are being proposed. This is an opportunity to provide amendments to make sure that we can strengthen the bill if we believe, as I argued, that we need people granted citizenship to have a deep, meaningful connection to Canada.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member on her speech.

Earlier, one of her colleagues spoke about language issues. Given that Quebec is a nation, a bill has already been introduced to make a knowledge of French a requirement for obtaining citizenship in Quebec. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.