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

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

Madam Speaker, as I spoke of in my remarks, I believe that this would create a two-tier immigration system. I think we should have an even playing field. If there are language requirements in other streams of immigration, absolutely, they should also be applied.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome everyone back to the House.

I must admit that I am really pleased to hear our Bloc Québécois colleagues talking about Canadian identity and citizenship and to hear our Conservative colleagues talking about the importance of our Canadian values. With that in mind, I would like to say that, yes, in Canada, we need to work hard, we need to ensure a safe environment and we need to promote an egalitarian environment.

When it comes to solidarity, particularly with regard to our two official languages, can we count on the Conservatives to really highlight this issue in the House?

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the spirit of collaboration, if this passes to committee, I would absolutely expect that when amendments are brought forward, they will be debated thoroughly and voted on in a non-partisan manner.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be back here in Ottawa this fall to represent the beautiful riding of Madawaska—Restigouche in Parliament. After spending the summer in the community with my constituents, I am thrilled to get back to our legislative work as part of a team that is determined to quickly deliver concrete results for Canadians and to build a strong Canada.

Today, we are addressing a very important issue with our study of Bill C‑3. Canadian citizenship is more than just an administrative status. It is a powerful symbol of belonging to a country. It confers certain fundamental rights, such as the right to vote and the right to travel with a Canadian passport, and it also embodies a civic responsibility, a shared identity and a deep connection to our country. To be a citizen of Canada is to be part of a collective project rooted in democracy, equality, diversity and freedom.

There are three pathways to citizenship under the Citizenship Act: by being born in Canada, through naturalization by immigrating to Canada and acquiring citizenship, or by descent if an individual is born abroad to a Canadian parent.

Today, our debate is focusing on this last pathway, which is citizenship by descent. Since 2009, the fundamental right to citizenship by descent has been unfairly restricted. Thousands of people with a real, long-term connection to Canada have been deprived of that sense of belonging. An amendment made to the Citizenship Act under Stephen Harper's Conservative government introduced an arbitrary rule commonly known as the first-generation limit. This provision means that only children born abroad to a Canadian parent who was born in Canada are automatically entitled to citizenship. In other words, if two successive generations are born outside Canada, even if the parents are active Canadian citizens, the child cannot become a citizen. This provision severed the legal and symbolic tie between Canada and many children of Canadians living temporarily abroad. Canadian families were plunged into legal uncertainty when they discovered that their children were considered foreigners in their own country.

These concerns are not theoretical. They are affecting children growing up in Canadian households abroad and families who wish to pass on to their children not just a passport, but also a Canadian identity, a cultural heritage, a sense of belonging to a community and a feeling of safety. Failing to recognize them sends a message of exclusion to those who feel like full-fledged Canadians. It is a dismissal of the contributions of our diaspora and of the reality that this is a country where familial and citizenship ties often transcend borders.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the first-generation limit is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates sections 6 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is, mobility rights and equality rights. The Government of Canada did not appeal this decision, since it acknowledges that the act has had unacceptable consequences. Instead, our government is bringing forward a legislative framework that is both balanced and responsible. I sincerely believe that this was the right decision.

Today we have an opportunity, I would even say a duty, to correct an injustice. Bill C‑3 seeks to expand access to citizenship by descent beyond the first generation. It was designed with one clear objective: to restore the rights of lost Canadians while establishing a fairer framework for future generations. Once passed, Bill C‑3 will automatically grant citizenship by descent to anyone who was born abroad to a Canadian parent before the law came into force. That means that the unjustly excluded descendants of Canadians will have their status restored.

For children born after the bill comes into force, a new framework will be introduced that allows citizenship to be passed on beyond the first generation if a Canadian parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. A substantial connection is defined as being physically present in Canada for 1,095 cumulative days, or approximately three years. This requirement ensures that children who are granted citizenship have a genuine connection to Canada, without arbitrarily excluding people based on their place of birth. Some might wonder why the substantial connection test is not being applied retroactively. That is because it would be unfair to impose conditions on people who were born before the law came into force, when the criterion was not yet in place. The bill takes a forward-looking approach, setting clear, transparent, fair standards for the future.

I would like to emphasize that, since the court struck down the first-generation criterion adopted in 2009 as unconstitutional, it cannot stay in place. However, the court granted us an extension to allow Bill C‑3 to run its parliamentary course. If this bill is not passed before the ruling's suspension ends, there will be no limits anymore on citizenship by descent for all the people born to Canadian citizens abroad. People will be able to pass citizenship on to their children in perpetuity without the need for a substantial connection to Canada.

Bill C-3 seeks to strike a balance between implementing reasonable limits to automatic citizenship by descent and protecting the rights and privileges associated with Canadian citizenship. The introduction of the substantial connection criterion helps maintain a reasonable balance. Citizenship by descent will still be possible, but it will have to be rooted in a real, tangible connection with Canada. This criterion guarantees that future generations will not receive citizenship without having real ties to the country. Our goal is to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship without needlessly restricting it.

This is a modern, balanced and responsible framework. In fact, it is more rigorous than simply getting rid of the first-generation limit. It protects the integrity of our citizenship while correcting glaring injustices.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that, behind the legal and administrative considerations we are discussing today, there are real people with personal stories, life experiences and sincere ties to Canada. We must remember that the decisions we make in this House can shape the destinies of individuals and entire families.

I would also urge everyone to demonstrate caution and accuracy in terms of the tone and content of our debates, particularly when dealing with issues as sensitive as access to citizenship. Provocative slogans and simplistic solutions designed to inflame social media have no place in a serious debate such as this.

We are here to legislate responsibly, not to polarize public discourse. As legislators, we have a duty to maintain a safe social environment and to consider the impact our words could have in the public sphere. We have seen what can happen elsewhere in the world when debates on citizenship and immigration are weaponized. It results in social division, stigma and a rise in intolerance and mistrust. Canada must not go down that path.

Of course, as elected officials, we have to make choices, draw lines and sometimes make difficult decisions. In the process, however, we must never forget the human dimension of our decisions or the impact that our words can have in the public sphere. Bill C‑3 is based on a reasoned, balanced approach that allows us to meet our constitutional obligations while maintaining the integrity of our citizenship.

In closing, I want to stress that Canadian citizenship instills in all of us a deep sense of belonging to the diverse, democratic and inclusive country we are proud to call our own. Our government will continue to protect the value of Canadian citizenship by ensuring that the process remains fair, transparent and rooted in sound principles. Bill C‑3 strikes a necessary balance. It corrects a past injustice toward Canadians who were deprived of their citizenship, while ensuring that, in the future, citizenship by descent is based on genuine ties to our country.

I therefore call on my colleagues from all parties to work together on advancing this important bill. As legislators, we have an opportunity to set aside partisan differences, show leadership and vision, and reaffirm our commitment to a fair and inclusive model of citizenship that reflects our shared values.

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

Madam Speaker, somebody who is seeking citizenship through naturalization must show proficiency in one of Canada's official languages. Citizenship by descent, which is what is being proposed in this bill, does not require a language proficiency test, so this bill would not require somebody seeking citizenship through citizenship by descent to obtain proficiency in one of Canada's official languages.

Given that my colleague is a francophone, and I am assuming he supports French-language skills, why is he supporting a bill that would not require people seeking citizenship to have proficiency in one of Canada's official languages?

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent Madawaska—Restigouche, a riding outside Quebec where over 80% of the population is francophone.

Today, we are debating Bill C-3, which seeks to correct a historic injustice that has been deemed unconstitutional: the first-generation measure. We have a duty to adopt a balanced system to ensure that people who have genuine ties to our country can become Canadian citizens. They should not be unfairly deprived of their citizenship.

There are two different kinds of citizenship. There is citizenship by naturalization, for which we have an immigration system and criteria. However, in this case, we are talking about something else, and that is citizenship by descent, where a parent can pass on citizenship to their children. To that end, I think that Bill C‑3 provides a balanced and reasonable system.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be back in the House. It feels like the start of a new school year. That being said, today, we are dealing with a subject that merits reflection, but that I think we need to move forward on. I say this as a member of the Bloc Québécois. Bill C-3 is a step in the right direction. I say that because of something that I witnessed recently. I want to give a shout-out to a citizen from Lac‑des‑Écorces, who was a victim of this. One of her brothers was able to get citizenship, but the two little twins were not.

We do need to take a step in the right direction, but I would like to ask my colleague a question. We are obviously not talking about the need to learn French to obtain citizenship, but does he agree with me that we need to completely overhaul the process for obtaining Canadian citizenship? I will not be there, because I will likely be busy taking care of that issue in Quebec down the road.

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

Madam Speaker, for now, Bill C‑3 is a welcome step in the right direction because many Canadians have lost their citizenship.

I have also heard stories about people in very problematic situations, which is why I said in my speech that we always have to keep in mind that the decisions we make in the House have a real impact on people's everyday lives. Conversations about access to citizenship are conversations about identity, about who we really are. That is why it is so important to work on Bill C‑3.

I believe there is always room for conversations about ways to improve our citizenship system going forward. Talking about these ideas with colleagues is enriching, but, right now, we are talking about Bill C‑3. I hope it will be passed as soon as possible in order to correct this historic injustice.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, with its large Acadian community, which also speaks French, as do Quebeckers.

I support reforming the Citizenship Act in order to protect the rights of people who have lost their citizenship. However, I would like to propose some amendments.

I have a question for my Liberal colleague. Can it be that the Prime Minister has lost the key to his bulldozer? In June, we did not have time to study any bills. We only had time to get them passed very quickly. However, Bill C‑3 is in need of some major changes.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that Bill C‑3 was one of the first bills introduced by our new government in the early days of this new Parliament last spring. I would suggest that this shows how important this issue is to our new government and how seriously we take this matter.

Of course, time is of the essence when we consider Bill C‑3, since the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that the first-generation limit is unconstitutional. We were granted a suspension from the court until November of this year to allow us to examine Bill C‑3. As a result, the parties will need to work together to pass Bill C‑3.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be back in the House of Commons representing the people of Regina—Lewvan.

If I can have some leeway, we obviously had the summer to go back to our ridings to talk to our constituents to find out some of the main points and topics they would like us to discuss here in the House of Commons on their behalf. We did some barbecue circuits and had lots of events in Regina—Lewvan. It is a busy place.

Some things that came up were about affordability. We are facing an affordability crisis in the country. We are also facing a housing crisis and an inflation crisis in this country. Those tie into some of the questions I have regarding Bill C-3 when it comes to what the Liberals are going to do with it. We want to get it to committee so we can put some amendments forward to strengthen it. We agree with some parts of it, but we really want to know what the value of our Canadian citizenship will look like with the Liberals and how it is going to be passed on from generation to generation.

I think the number of Canadian citizens we will be adding is about 115,000. Right now, with the climate in our country, do we know how many would come to Canada? Would there be homes for these people if they came to Canada? These were some of the questions I had when I first glanced at Bill C-3.

One question I would love a Liberal colleague to answer, maybe the member for Winnipeg North, is whether the Liberals consulted with the provinces on this bill. Were there conversations? A lot of the time there are unintended consequences to some of the legislation and policies the Liberals bring forward. If people who get citizenship come back to Canada, what will that look like for the health care system? Have the Liberals thought about that? The health care systems across the provinces are under strain right now. What would this bill do to the health care system in Saskatchewan or Manitoba? When we look at a bill like this, I would say there are a lot of potential unintended consequences to adding that many citizens to this country.

I know a Conservative senator put forward a bill like this in the other place, but Bill C-3 broadens the scope of birthright citizenship substantially. We have questions about expanding that scope. How much pressure does it put on the programs and systems we have in our country that are already on the verge of not being able to handle the influx of people who access those systems, such as health care and education? When we look at this bill, we really want to make some amendments to it. I believe some of my colleagues have talked about working collaboratively in the new session to make sure we have good pieces of legislation going forward for the Canadian people. That is something we look forward to doing by putting forward amendments.

Bill C-3 is the latest attempt by the Liberals to overhaul Canada's citizenship laws. Originally introduced as Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament, it builds on Conservative Senator Yonah Martin's Bill S-245, which targeted a narrow group that was inadvertently affected by the 2009 reforms under the Harper government. This is something we have had our eye and focus on to make sure there is some fairness for the people who were affected in 2009. However, rather than maintaining that focus, as I mentioned earlier, the NDP used its alliance with the Liberals at committee to push forward sweeping changes well beyond the bill's intent. Then when Bill S-245 was stalled, the Liberals reintroduced the expanded version of Bill C-71 in the last in Parliament, which is now Bill C-3.

This legislation drastically broadens access to citizenship far beyond what we can support. It includes measures responding to the December 2023 Ontario Superior Court ruling that struck down the first-generation limitation on citizenship for children born abroad. That was not appealed by the federal government. Under Bill C-3, citizenship would be extended to those born outside Canada with at least one Canadian parent who has lived in Canada for 1,095 non-consecutive days.

That brings up several other questions. How is that going to be regulated? Who is going to oversee it to make sure that criteria is met?

We know that the immigration system is at a breaking point. In Regina—Lewvan, we have a very diverse community, and I would say that about 80% of the cases in our office have something to do with the IRCC. Are the Liberals going to hire more people to ensure that this criteria is met? Who is going to take on the extra bureaucracy to ensure that the criteria laid out in this piece of legislation is met? Perhaps a member from across the aisle could answer that for us as well.

We know there are long wait times at the IRCC. Is this going to add more to those wait times for people who have been waiting years sometimes to get answers from the IRCC? As my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake mentioned, this bill would put in place a two-tier system where some people who have been waiting for years and years for an answer from IRCC would be queue-jumped by people who would be given citizenship without some of the criteria we have outlined.

There is the conversation about what the language criteria would look like. That is something else that is not in this bill.

Also, there is no criminal record check for people who are going to become Canadian citizens. Is that something this House is prepared to move forward with? Do we not want to know if the people who are becoming Canadian citizens have a criminal record? That really has to be delved into at the committee level as well.

These are all pretty understandable questions, and questions that people would have if I were to be in support of this legislation. Have the Liberals asked those questions? Have they, on our behalf, made sure that those checks and balances have been taken into consideration?

I really would like a member of the Liberal Party to stand up and talk about the consultations with provincial immigration ministers about this piece of legislation. Was consultation done showing that the policy put forward is something the provinces agree with? As in my remarks earlier, a lot of these programs that may be accessed fall into provincial jurisdiction, and there is a lot more burden on them. Health care would for sure be one of them. Are people going to come back for our health care system if they have Canadian citizenship? I do not know the answer to that. Have the Liberals thought of that potential strain on the system? Are more people who have citizenship going to come back to Canada to access education? That is another question that would be asked.

The question I have is, what is the total number of people? I think I have heard that it is around 115,000. Has that grown over the last couple of years? Is it more or less? When it comes to our systems, that really needs to be answered.

Do not only take it from me. These are questions that lots of other people are asking as well. Someone who has a much broader knowledge of the immigration system than me, Sergio Karas, principal of Karas Immigration Law Professional Corporation, said in 2024:

Introducing tens of thousands of new citizens without a robust integration plan is reckless. Our social infrastructure is buckling, and health care is under severe pressure. The lack of a clear strategy for accommodating this potential population surge only heightens concerns.

It is not just me asking these questions; there are lots of other people who have similar concerns about this piece of legislation. Another person I would like to put on the record is Krisha Dhaliwal, Canadian immigration and citizenship lawyer: “At this point, 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.” I mentioned that earlier. Who is going to be the arbitrator of that? Who is going to make sure that criteria has been followed, and how robust will that be? Those are some of the questions we would like answered at the committee level.

I think this bill does something that we as Conservatives take very seriously and puts into question the value of Canadian citizenship. In other countries, it is not the case that people can have next-generation citizenship. A lot of our peer countries have much different criteria for their citizenship, and we should look at best practices around the world to see what they do and how they make sure their citizenship is valued. This is why we have those questions.

As I said, Canada is a beautiful, welcoming country, but we have questions about the criteria and what this legislation would look like. It would put a strain on the system and on our provincial partners as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns that the member has expressed. When it comes to consultation, consultations are always done for government legislation. I will put to the member the issue I have. Here we have legislation on which a couple of Conservatives have stood up to say that there are individuals who should receive their citizenship. There is no reason whatsoever why, after having had hours and hours of debate, we should not see the legislation go to committee. It is a minority government, meaning the government cannot ram the bill through a committee. It takes a majority of members to pass an amendment.

If the Conservatives are so confident in the need for changes, why would they not want to see the bill go to committee? Conservative voters themselves want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, with a new session, there is a new demeanor. I appreciate the calm demeanor of my colleague from Winnipeg North. Sometimes he gets a little robust in his debate.

I find it interesting that the member who probably speaks the most on the floor of the House of Commons has an issue with us standing up and putting our concerns on the record for our constituents. I think a bit of debate and having members address the concerns they hear in their ridings is a good part of democracy. I feel that this is the proper process, and when we get to the committee level, we are looking forward to putting forth amendments that will make this piece of legislation better. We will see if those are accepted by the other parties in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I love the comment from our colleague across the way, saying we should not worry, it will all get sorted out and Liberals will work with everybody to make things better. I have been here for 10 years and have yet to really see any of that take place.

In the office of my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, the immigration cases far outweigh any of the other cases we do. They are absolutely heartbreaking. There is Maya, whose case we dealt with, a lovely lady from Syria who came to Prince George to take her master's degree. She was by herself. She left her husband behind and worked for years to get her husband into our country. There is also a gentleman by the name of Mal. He worked desperately to get his wife and children from India here. These are families that are separated, torn far apart, and it is absolutely heartbreaking when we hear their stories.

My question to our hon. colleague is this: Do we know whether other peer countries, like the United States, Britain, Italy and France, follow suit with the same practice of passing citizenship on to children who are born abroad?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hard work the member does for his constituents in Cariboo—Prince George. I do appreciate the fact that the question is something I mentioned in my speech.

I would say it is not the standard of practice in the United States, Britain, France, Italy or a number of our peer countries, which, with the rare exception, have capped passing on citizenship to the first generation born outside of the country. We are definitely not in line with our partner countries.