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

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

Madam Speaker, when we talk about Bill C‑5, we are talking about human beings, about families.

Let me be clear: The Bloc Québécois will be supporting the bill. Just because we are members of the Bloc Québécois does not mean we think only about the people of Quebec. Among other things, there are real people behind this inequity, which has been described as unconstitutional. Despite the opposition and the fact that comprehensive reform is needed, I dare hope that we can move on to other, equally important issues, and finish with this one.

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree that reforms are needed, especially when it comes to some kind of language criteria. I believe my colleague would agree with that. Those are some of the adjustments that need to be made at committee level, but following the process and ensuring that people do get to speak in the House of Commons about legislation is a good part of the process. I think people do have comments they want to put on the record to reflect the desires and opinions of their constituents.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. The proposed bill has three pieces to it to address issues related to citizenship by descent, lost citizenship and the status of born-abroad or adopted children of Canadian citizens. The stated aim is to ensure that individuals born to or adopted by Canadian parents outside Canada have a path to obtaining or retaining Canadian citizenship.

Canada is a beautiful, sovereign and distinct nation with a rich history and free democracy, with values and an identity that have been built and that have existed for longer than just our lifetime. Canadian citizenship, as defined by former minister for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism Jason Kenney, “is more than a legal status, more than a passport. We expect citizens to have an ongoing commitment, connection and loyalty to Canada.”

Former Liberal minister for citizenship and immigration Lucienne Robillard said, “We [ought] to share our citizenship with those who want it and work hard to deserve it.”

While the Liberal government claims that it is trying to right historical wrongs by loosening its test of connection to our country, it is proposing to remove safeguards and to allow citizenship to be granted without the need for connection, engaging civically or contributing to the social safety nets in Canada that many rely on. In other words, it is proposing to share our citizenship with people who do not want to, in the words of the former Liberal minister, “work hard to deserve it”.

The bill contains elements that could undermine trust at a time when Canadians are seeking to unite in the midst of uncertainty. The bill, however, is also nothing new. It was tabled by the previous Liberal government as Bill C-71 and, before that, in the Senate, as Bill S-245, which was heavily altered by the Liberals and New Democrats, yet another classic example of a Liberal band-aid-like solution to a problem without considering the consequences.

Citizenship is a connection to a home. It is loyalty to one's country. Canadian citizenship comes with a promise that anyone from anywhere can achieve anything if they are willing to work hard. Reducing the requirement to obtain citizenship threatens to undermine the millions of Canadians who have come for decades, fleeing persecution, violence and war, or those seeking to give a better life to their children than they had. It required a process, and it required effort. It required planting roots in Canada, involving themselves in their community and engaging with their fellow Canadians.

Each province within Canada has unique needs, interests, identities and culture. Some have their own distinct language. One provision in Bill C-3 would require a person to live in Canada for 1,095 days. However, it would not require the 1,095 days to be consecutive, meaning that Canadian citizenship may not require participation or a love for their province and the country.

My riding is rural, and families from Saskatchewan have had roots planted in their community for generations, caring and working for the success of one another. It takes time and commitment, resulting in a way of life that is loved and respected by those around them. The west was settled by pioneers, people who risked everything, leaving the comforts of what was known, in order to build a life elsewhere that could be better. The key here is to build a life. It is important that this experience is also shared by those people seeking Canadian citizenship.

Justin Trudeau spent years devaluing and trying to erase what makes up the Canadian identity, referring to Canada as a “postnational state”. Measures like the one set out in Bill C-3 devalue the importance of choosing Canada as a home with shared duties and responsibilities. While the Liberals had no clue and were unable to even guess how many people the change could affect, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that if the bill passes, more than 100,000 new people would be granted citizenship in five years.

At a time when Canadians feel that the health care system and our economy are more fragile than ever, the Liberal government wants to issue new citizenship without requiring that the people in question pay taxes, just to reside in Canada from time to time over the course of their lifetime. With no requirement that it be consecutive or accomplished within a time frame, and for those of descent, citizenship could be passed to those who have never lived in Canada.

Conservatives will always support positive changes that seek to correct issues to current legislation. That is why it is so difficult to support the bill in its current form. At the time the bill was introduced, not even the parliamentary secretary had read it until that same morning. The legislation seems to create more challenges than it solves. We owe it to both Canadians and newcomers to handle this fragile system with the utmost care. I fail to see that this is what is happening with the last-minute communications from a minister to a parliamentary secretary when it was introduced.

For example, let us talk about the backlog in citizenship applications. The backlog is in the hundreds of thousands, while the government has failed to meet its own metrics for processing applications in spades. There are no details that outline what background checks would look like or even whether they would occur at all. Canadians should be able to expect that their elected leaders would consider their safety ahead of rushed solutions.

The department, IRCC, has nearly a million total applicants outside acceptable processing times. That is on top of the more than one million applicants it claims are waiting for their application to be resolved. What is the plan to solve the new influx of citizenship applications if we are going to add 30% more in just five years? Adding more seems like a plan to fail, more than it seems like a plan.

I hope for the sake of Canadians that the bill is not an example of how the Liberal government plans to enact changes, by simply rushing the process instead of fixing the deep-rooted issues it has spent the last 10 years creating.

Conservatives know that it is not just the legislation that is the issue; it is also that the Liberal government continues to put bandages over a broken immigration system. Canadians are looking for change from the fourth-term Liberal government, change that delivers on the promises the Liberals made in the last election rather than the same old band-aid solutions that may cause even more damage.

While we are a generous and compassionate nation, citizenship must be valued, and immigration should work for the betterment of Canadians and Canada. Conservatives will always stand on the side of a fair and robust system that does not disenfranchise Canadians or potentially risk their safety.

That is why Conservatives, through Bill S-245, sought to correct the very changes the Liberals are now claiming to fix, but without creating more problems for our already overburdened immigration system. The members opposite me are using the bill that the Conservatives brought forward to put forward their own ideological biases. The Liberals changed it and then stalled it in the Senate. They have never given an account to Canadians and to those they claim they are trying to help for why they delayed the solution we brought forward and why they put their own interests first. I think that is shameful.

While the Liberals say it is because of an Ontario court ruling from June 2023, a ruling they never appealed, it is now an emergency, and only because they have not been able to propose a decent piece of legislation and get it passed in the last two years. Canadians deserve and should be able to expect better from their government.

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

Madam Speaker, the member uses the word “broken”, and this is something that Pierre Poilievre likes to talk about, to give a false impression—

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

The hon. member knows that he should not mention other members by name.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thought we could use his name as long as he has not been brought to the bar.

The former member for Carleton consistently talks about Canada being broken. Now he is talking about immigration being broken, yet he sat around a cabinet table where it took years to be able to sponsor a spouse and where the then minister of immigration deleted literally hundreds of thousands of files of people who were in that process for years.

Yes, there are issues with immigration. There could even be issues of concern with respect to Bill C-3. Even Conservative speakers have indicated there is a need to pass elements of Bill C-3 in order to provide justice, for individuals to be able to receive their citizenship. One of the first steps in achieving that justice is recognizing that even Conservative voters want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons so we can give that justice.

My question for the member is this. Would she not agree that Conservatives can talk and debate, even at committee stage, and bring forward amendments, and all they need to do is get the support of the majority? After all, it is a minority government. If their arguments are that strong, surely to goodness they would be able to pass it at committee stage.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe that not only I but others who have already spoken to this piece of legislation this morning have indicated that we believe in a strong, fair and meaningful Canadian citizenship. We also support restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and equal treatment for adopted children. However, as we have stated, the bill goes far beyond that, cheapening the value of Canadian citizenship by creating a new system of unlimited chain migration, which only serves to undermine our national identity.

I look forward to watching what happens at committee. I trust that, based on what the member has said, members of the Liberal caucus who serve on that committee would be more than open to the amendments we bring forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her debate and her tone.

I would like her to expand on her question. What amendments will the Conservatives move in committee to improve the bill? Above all, when she talks about a loophole that the bill might create for some immigrants, what loophole is she referring to, exactly? I would like to better understand my colleague, and I think it is a matter of general interest.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would not presume to pre-empt what the members on the committee that will be reviewing this piece of legislation may choose to bring forward and what they may choose to bring forward based on the testimony they may hear in regard to this piece of legislation.

I believe that, as in the past, we have a case here of some deeply flawed legislation being proposed. We have already indicated some of the things that we have difficulty with. The government does not know the number of people this will impact, it does not know what the costs are, and it has not been able to confirm processes that need to be put in place in order to follow up with its 1,095-day requirement.

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

Madam Speaker, our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North stands up once again, points fingers and says that all the Conservatives say is, “It is broken.” Well, this file is broken, and the truth is that the Liberals broke it. Our country was built on the backs of immigrants. Immigration is so important to our country, yet the Liberals broke it. They lost track of over a million immigrants coming into our country; we know that from the last session.

I know our hon. colleague, who I have the deepest respect for, has heard some of the same stories that I have in my constituency. Could the member share another story of a constituent in her riding who has some deep fears about this piece of legislation?

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

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek has 10 seconds.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think I would have difficulty choosing just one story because, as my hon. colleague pointed out, immigration issues consume a lot of our time in our ridings.

I will say this: Conservatives will continue to support a system that is one of integrity and security and is based on responsible policy. We will continue to support—

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

Unfortunately, we have to resume debate; we are way over time.

The hon. member for Niagara South.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in this place after a very eventful summer. It is nice to see my colleagues. Welcome back to you, Madam Speaker.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Niagara South. Today we are debating an important piece of legislation that seeks to make amendments to the Citizenship Act and that for a third time is up for debate in this chamber.

For those who have not been following Bill C-3, it is the third iteration, which started as Bill S-245 in the other place, introduced in the last Parliament. The original iteration of the bill was commendable and received bipartisan support from this chamber. In it, the bill sought to achieve two key changes, with the first relating to adoption.

Currently, if parents adopt a child from abroad, once the adoption is completed they are required to file a permanent residency application on behalf of the child. The financial cost associated with this can be quite high, often requiring the services of an immigration consultant or lawyer, and the process can be incredibly stressful and time-consuming for the family seeking to adopt. That bill and Bill C-3 would do away with that process entirely and instead allow for the adopted child to obtain citizenship as if they were born in Canada, the moment the adoption itself is finalized. This is a positive change and one that Conservatives support.

The second component of the original bill dealt with the issue of lost Canadians, a topic with which I was unfamiliar prior to arriving here. This deals with restoring citizenship to a group of people born between 1977 and 1981 who had lost their citizenship as a result of a glitch in our immigration system. Again, Conservatives supported this provision.

What is the issue that our side has with this bill? The problem lies with the third component of this bill, which did not exist until the Liberal-NDP coalition hijacked the original bill at committee stage in the last Parliament. During clause-by-clause review, and by way of last-minute changes, the Liberals inserted a controversial clause creating multi-generational citizenship, which went far beyond the original intent of the bill. Ultimately, because of this last-minute change, which sought to fundamentally alter the way citizenship is passed on in Canada for citizens living abroad, this bill got bogged down in committee and died on the Order Paper.

The government proceeded to reintroduce the bill as a government bill, Bill C-71, which also failed to pass. Today, the government is trying again, for a third time, introducing what is effectively the same bill with the same controversies and somehow expecting it to have a different result. Let us take a moment to look at what multi-generational citizenship is and the issues we have with it.

Currently, passing on Canadian citizenship to children born abroad is subject to the first-generation limit introduced by the Harper government in 2009 through Bill C-37. The first-generation limit states that only the first generation of children born abroad can automatically claim and obtain Canadian citizenship. A Canadian citizen can pass on their citizenship to their child born outside of Canada, but the next generation also born abroad would not automatically receive it. This new bill would change that by creating a substantial connection test. Specifically, if a parent wants to pass citizenship to their child, they must prove that they have spent at least 1,095 non-consecutive days physically present in Canada at one point in their lives before the birth of their child abroad, subject to some conditions.

This means that citizenship now is multi-generational, as parents no longer have to be born in Canada. This can translate into having a family permanently living abroad, with multiple generations born outside Canada, gaining citizenship. To assist those watching, imagine this scenario: A second-generation Canadian parent who has been living abroad for nearly their entire life could, in theory, send their kids to school in Canada for three years, at a discounted rate, and that would make those children eligible for Canadian citizenship.

That person would never have to file a T1 in Canada or be required to speak either of our two official languages, yet they would be eligible for citizenship, given the simple fact that at one point in their life they spent three non-consecutive years visiting Canada. Their child could, in fact, repeat the process for their children and pass on citizenship onto yet another generation. That is akin to generational citizenship in perpetuity. The only requirement is the three-year stay in Canada.

I am proud to be Canadian. I ran for public office to better the lives of the people in my community, bring investments to the Niagara region and advocate for the issues that the people in my community care deeply about.

Individuals who were born abroad and who have spent their entire adult lives there, do not pay taxes here and do not have any real connection to the sense of community that makes us Canadian should not be eligible for citizenship, in my opinion. To allow individuals who have never truly lived here to enjoy all the benefits that come with being a Canadian citizen, including health care, government pensions, voting, protection from our government while abroad or even the privilege of running as an elected official, seems wrong to me.

Frankly, in my opinion and that of many of my Conservative colleagues, these amendments diminish the value of our citizenship and turn what otherwise would have been a very good piece of legislation into a piece of bad legislation.

If members opposite took the time to speak to some of the permanent residents in their riding who pay taxes, contribute to our communities and are building lives here with their families, I believe they would find that they too agree with the Conservative position and are frustrated with how people with such inconsequential connections to Canada could obtain citizenship.

Most importantly, the legislation assumes the government would be able to properly manage it. The success and implementation of these changes are based on whether IRCC or CBSA would in fact verify when Canadians arrive and when they leave to determine whether they are eligible to meet the substantial connection test of 1,095 days. This is a monumental task when one considers that over four million Canadian citizens currently live abroad, according to Stats Canada. This opens the door to yet another enormous bureaucratic burden and cost.

The staff in my constituency office have been flooded with requests and complaints this past summer regarding IRCC's poor handling of immigration casework and the backlogs it faces. Members will pardon me for not having faith in the Liberal government, which cannot even seem to deliver passports on time, let alone track the movement of millions of citizens abroad.

Lastly, I would like to comment on the view that the Conservatives were obstructionist with the legislation at committee in the last Parliament. First, the concerns regarding fundamental changes to multi-generational citizenship are quite legitimate, and debating the issue of whether individuals with few ties to Canada should receive citizenship is indeed a valid concern worth significant discussion. Some of these individuals may have spent their entire life abroad except for three short nonconsecutive years; this is not substantial enough and is like counting vacation days to qualify for citizenship.

Citizenship is the most valuable asset one can enjoy in Canada. Citizens should know and learn about our values, our history and the very fabric of our nation. These are things that should not be simply discarded or replaced over an 1,100-day stay in Canada. To that end, I look forward to working with other members of the committee to dive deeper into these issues in good faith so that we can move forward with what otherwise would have been a very good piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I will use a hypothetical example: A third-generation Canadian, who was born, raised, everything, here in Canada, has a child, and that child, upon hitting five years old, moves with the family to any European country, or to any other country in the world, lives there for 30, 40 or 50 years, and then makes the determination that they want to come back. Would the member then apply the very same principles he is espousing today of them not having that connection?

The 1,095 days that the Conservatives continue to talk about is something that qualifies an individual to become a permanent resident to Canada. There are some requirements to qualify to become a citizen. Depending on the age, there might be an English requirement or a French requirement. There is the 1,095 days requirement. Is the Conservative Party suggesting that we should be changing the 1,095 days?

The Conservative Party needs to recognize that its members might have some ideas that are good to have some debate on, but let us respond to what Conservative voters are saying and have a more robust sense of co-operation in getting legislation to committees, where they can have the kind of debate the member seems to want to have.

Would the member not agree that it is time to allow legislation to actually go to committee, as opposed to talking endlessly in regards to it, so that Canadians would get what they want, which is a robust opposition that wants to co-operate, just like the government?