An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

Sponsor

Status

In committee (House), as of Sept. 22, 2025

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-3.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s adoption;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and
(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-3s:

C-3 (2021) Law An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code
C-3 (2020) Law An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code
C-3 (2020) An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
C-3 (2015) Law Appropriation Act No. 4, 2015-16

Votes

Sept. 22, 2025 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-3 amends the Citizenship Act to address citizenship by descent, restore citizenship to "lost Canadians," and grant citizenship to some adopted individuals. A "substantial connection" to Canada is required.

Liberal

  • Rectifies unconstitutional law: The bill fixes an unconstitutional problem created by the Harper government's first-generation limit on citizenship by descent, which was deemed a Charter violation by the Ontario Superior Court.
  • Restores citizenship for lost Canadians: It restores Canadian citizenship to those who lost it due to the repealed age 28 rule and grants citizenship to second or subsequent generations born abroad before the new law's enactment.
  • Defines future citizenship by descent: For future generations born abroad, citizenship by descent beyond the first generation requires the Canadian parent to prove a substantial connection, defined as three cumulative years of physical presence in Canada.
  • Urges speedy passage by deadline: The party stresses the bill's urgency, noting a November 2025 court deadline to implement amendments and prevent a legal gap, urging cross-party collaboration for swift enactment.

Conservative

  • Opposes unlimited citizenship by descent: The party opposes the bill's provision for unlimited, multi-generational citizenship by descent, criticizing the weak 1,095 non-consecutive day residency requirement and absence of criminal background checks.
  • Supports adopted children and lost Canadians: Conservatives support the bill's elements granting citizenship to adopted children from abroad and restoring citizenship to "lost Canadians" affected by past legislative errors.
  • Raises concerns about impact and costs: The party is concerned the government lacks estimates for the number of new citizens and the significant financial implications for taxpayers and social services.
  • Demands key amendments: Conservatives demand amendments to include a substantial, consecutive residency requirement and mandatory security vetting for all applicants to uphold citizenship integrity.

NDP

  • Supports bill C-3: The NDP supports Bill C-3 to correct Canada's citizenship laws, making them charter-compliant after the Harper government stripped rights for second-generation born abroad.
  • Addresses discriminatory impact: The bill remedies discrimination against first-generation born-abroad women, who faced difficult choices regarding family planning and their children's citizenship, as ruled unconstitutional.
  • Rejects conservative opposition: The NDP rejects Conservative proposals for a "criminality test" for Canadian citizenship, asserting that birthrights are not contingent on such conditions and are handled by the judicial system.

Bloc

  • Supports Bill C-3: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-3 as it corrects historical injustices and oversights in the Citizenship Act, particularly for "lost Canadians" and in response to a court ruling.
  • Calls for swift, non-partisan passage: The party urges swift passage of the bill after thorough study in committee, without using closure, and stresses the importance of cross-party collaboration to achieve results.
  • Criticizes departmental dysfunction: The Bloc criticizes the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as dysfunctional, citing long processing times and one-size-fits-all immigration policies, and calls for a comprehensive overhaul of the Citizenship Act.

Green

  • Supports Bill C-3 to restore citizenship: The Green Party celebrates the return of this legislation as Bill C-3, supporting its goal to redress past legislative mistakes and restore citizenship to "lost Canadians" in a Charter-compliant manner.
  • Calls for proper committee review: The party advocates for thorough committee hearings to address concerns, consult experts, and ensure the bill is properly scrutinized rather than rushed through Parliament.
  • Proposes citizenship as a right: Elizabeth May suggests adding an amendment to Bill C-3 to explicitly state that Canadian citizenship is a fundamental right, protecting it from arbitrary actions by those in power.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Fred Davies Conservative Niagara South, ON

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there.

Let me say this: We have concerns about the legislation. There are two or three components that we agree with, and we are quite happy to dive into this at committee.

What I am not in favour of, and what our party is not in favour of, is citizenship in perpetuity being given to people who may not have ever set foot in Canada to become Canadian citizens. To me, that is absurd.

We will debate this, diving into the legislation at committee, and we will put forward amendments to improve it. I do not see what is wrong with that. The member suggests that we are talking endlessly, but this is what we do in this place when legislation is presented at second reading. We debate it, and we present our opinions, on the record.

I look forward to having this sent to committee, as well as reviewing it and the improvements from this side of the House.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Niagara South for his speech. I think it is appropriate to send him my regards for the first time in this Parliament.

I would like to know more about the Conservatives' position. This morning, it felt as though Niagara Falls was such a sieve that it was about to become the new Roxham Road.

However, that is not what I take from this bill. I would like my colleague to clearly explain to me what the loophole is that, if I understood his previous colleague's intervention correctly, would open Canada's borders to hundreds of thousands of people for citizenship in perpetuity.

What exactly are the Conservatives afraid of and, more importantly, what concrete, pragmatic and simple solutions will they propose in committee to fix this loophole?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Fred Davies Conservative Niagara South, ON

Madam Speaker, my colleague's reference to Niagara Falls is quite timely. I was in Niagara Falls the other day with the mayor of the community. We were walking down Fallsview Boulevard, and he was pointing out all the hotels that are full of people waiting to have their refugee applications dealt with, at hundreds of millions of dollars in cost to the taxpayer. This goes to the heart of part of the reason we have an issue with this bill.

The backlog at IRCC to have files dealt with, in some cases, is up to two years. That is one of the issues that could be created with this bill if it were to pass in its current form. The backlog and the burden on IRCC and CBSA is going to be overwhelming, and it is going to be very costly to the taxpayer.

Niagara Falls is not the next Roxham Road, but I can tell the member that there are serious issues affecting that community now because we cannot get a handle on our immigration cases.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome back my hon. colleague and all those who have returned to the House with the goal of making Canadians' lives better.

The hon. member rightly points out that this bill is about fixing an infringement to the rights of a group of people with a substantial connection to Canada who, through an accident of fate, did not fit certain technical rules that were enacted with good intentions by a previous government. The courts have challenged us to work together to repatriate these lost Canadians while preventing those without a real connection to Canada from treating our country as a passport of convenience.

The world is a volatile and scary place for so many right now, and Canada remains a beacon of relative calm in that storm. Can the hon. member point to any measure in Bill C-3 that would ensure that the lax 1,095 non-consecutive day test would not take us full circle right back to the abuse of Canadian passports that created the need for the—

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I have to give the hon. member for Niagara South 15 seconds to answer the question.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Fred Davies Conservative Niagara South, ON

Madam Speaker, the provision of 1,095 days is very strange to me. Canadian citizenship is a valuable asset for anybody who wants to be part of this country. I just cannot connect the dots between that number of days and being able to qualify—

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Provencher.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-3.

Canadian citizenship is one of the most important things our country has to offer. It is not just a document or a passport; it is a commitment to Canada, its people and its values. It carries not only rights and privileges, but also responsibilities, and that is why citizenship must be defended and upheld. It cannot be treated casually, and it must never be handed out without limits. Bill C-3 undermines that principle. People who may never set foot in Canada, who have not contributed to our society and who have no intention of living here could be granted Canadian citizenship. That would be to destroy what it means to be Canadian.

Canadians understand that our immigration and citizenship systems are already broken. Adding a vast open-ended pool of new applicants without any planning or clear limits would only make things worse. The government has not released how many new citizens Bill C-3 could create. Numbers, costs and the implementation plan are clearly lacking.

This lack of accountability matters. Citizenship must and does mean more than a piece of paper. It represents a real and substantial connection to Canada. That means living here, contributing here and being a part of a united Canadian society.

Conservatives believe in a citizenship system that is fair, is reasonable, is rooted in accountability and puts Canada first. We will not support policies that would so badly skew the meaning of being a Canadian citizen, and we will not put Canadian workers and families at a disadvantage. Conservatives will continue to fight for policies that protect our sovereignty, ensuring that citizenship retains its value and keeps our country strong for generations to come. Canada deserves no less.

Conservatives cannot support this bill. It is an attempt to cheapen citizenship and make it less valuable. Conservatives stand up for integrity, security and responsible immigration.

As many here know, Canada's immigration policy used to be the envy of the world. This bill would potentially radically obscure a common vision of the value of being a Canadian. To hand out Canadian citizenship to people with little or no connection to Canada is insanity.

Regarding its background, Bill C-3 is a re-creation of a previous bad bill with which the Liberal government last attempted to overhaul Canadian citizenship laws. Back in December 2021, 23 applicants from seven families filed a constitutional challenge. The subsequent ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that the first-generation rule in the 2009 Citizenship Act was unconstitutional and gave the federal government six months to respond. Instead of an appeal of that decision, there have now been four extensions. The current requirement is that a response be legislated by November 20 of this year, so the clock is now ticking, and Bill C-3 represents the new version of the Liberals' unpassed Bill C-71 in the last sitting.

Just because the timer is on does not mean that we should pass bad policy. All we need to do is respond to what needs to be fixed. Instead, Bill C-3 would open the door to abuse by dramatically broadening access to citizenship. This would primarily be done by eliminating the requirement for strong ties to Canada. Where Bill C-3 could have maintained a focused and targeted approach like Conservative Senator Martin's Bill S-245 did, this bill, Bill C-3, proposes sweeping changes that would dramatically impact the face of citizenship.

To give a bit of context on this, back in 2009, the Conservative government at the time addressed concerns about Canadians of convenience, that is, Canadians who hold Canadian citizenship who live outside the country and do not participate in Canadian society. Consequently, Bill C-37 amended the Citizenship Act to limit citizenship access down to one generation. In other words, non-resident parents could pass on citizenship to their children, but grandchildren would not automatically be granted citizenship. From this legislation, we became aware of lost Canadians, who are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it or thought that they were entitled to Canadian citizenship but never received it. Senator Martin's Bill S-245 could have addressed these concerns.

Instead, the government is trying to rush through a bad bill when so many other factors need our immediate attention. Not considering factors such as housing, inflation, homebuilding, job security, natural resources, crime and even our drug rate is not being honest to newcomers to Canada.

When people come to Canada, we want to extend the Canadian promise that envisions hard work being rewarded, food and homes being affordable, streets being safe, borders being secure and all people coming together, united under a proud flag, and that is why getting the legislation right is so important. Right now we have the second highest unemployment in the G7, the worst household debt and, in some regions, the highest house prices. To top it all off, our food prices keep going up and up.

Throughout the election, we were promised that we would “build, baby, build”, doubling homebuilding, but instead we are being told homebuilding will fall by 13%. Already in Toronto and the GTA, homebuilding has fallen by half. I know there were announcements made on the weekend by the Liberal government, but as far as I know, announcements so far are not translating into shovels in the ground. Either way, we simply do not have enough homes for Canadians.

In the previous version of the bill, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that 115,000 new Canadian citizens could immediately be added to Canada at a cost of $21 million just for the processing, that being only one estimate. Ryan Tumilty of the National Post wrote that, in fact, the government has no idea how many people would automatically be granted citizenship if the legislation is passed, because there is retroactivity to the current legislation.

I note that this is all happening after we were promised less spending during the election, and from what we know right now, deficit spending looks to be 100% bigger than what we were promised. This is important, because the proposed cost implications of Bill C-3 to Canadians, related to health care, pensions and education, are not even considered a factor. That was discovered in the technical briefing. Canada is already challenged economically.

Again, the election promise was that we would have more investment, but just last week, we discovered that $62 billion of net investment has left the country since the Prime Minister took office. The National Bank says that this is the biggest net outflow in any five-month period in Canadian history.

Unemployment, the cost of living, the cost of homebuilding, tariffs and crime are all up. Worse yet, CIBC says that unemployment matches levels that are typically seen only during recessionary periods, and our youth are the ones who are suffering the most. Over 17% of students are returning to school this fall having failed to secure a summer job. For younger students, aged 15 to 16, unemployment rose to a rate of over 31%.

We have some catching up to do, which is one of the reasons Bill C-3 is just not doable in its current form. Ministers have expressed that they are open to edits and changes, but the bill has massive flaws. There is an old proverb that reads, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.” Conservatives want better legislation. We want legislation that will be passed and that will be successful.

The Liberals are proposing that we streamline multi-generational foreign residents to claim citizenship with minimal presence in the country. We would be extending multi-generational access, generation after generation, when a parent has to spend only 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada, and with no criminal record check. One immigration lawyer asked what kind of evidence would be required to demonstrate one's physical presence in Canada. Citizenship is not about having minimal connection to Canada or joining a club for convenience; citizenship is a commitment to Canada, to its people and its values, and it carries rights and privileges but also carries responsibility.

Finally, it is about people coming from different backgrounds, different languages, and different countries and cultures, all uniting meaningfully with common vision for the country we love.

God keep Canada, the true north, strong and free.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague opposite back to the House of Commons.

There are a lot of things that were said in my colleague's speech that, although I do not want to blame him for misleading, were very misleading to Canadians. Connecting crime, jobs and housing to Bill C-3 is very misleading to Canadians. I think it is important to remember what the bill is about, and the Conservatives have, on multiple occasions, voted for the bill. I have met lost Canadians, some of whom are family members of service members of our country.

Why are we misleading Canadians by making them think that it is a new bill and that it is something that it is not, by connecting crime, housing and all other issues to a bill in which we have made a promise to Canadians who have served our country, that we will bring them back to our country and give them the citizenship that they deserve because they are members of our country?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, the bill is about providing citizenship to multi-generational people who have never lived here, who have no intention of living here and who have never been in Canada. Under the bill, to become a Canadian citizen, a person would not be required to have spent a day in Canada. The parents are required to spend 1,095 days in Canada over their lifetime. However, a person could conceivably, in the bill's current form, receive Canadian citizenship without ever having spent a day in Canada, and they could use their Canadian citizenship for travel purposes, for coming here in the event of a medical emergency, for cheaper education or to take advantage of our social system here, because they would be a Canadian citizen.

The bill is seriously flawed, and the member should actually take notice of that.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:40 p.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate him on his speech.

There are cases where the law seems unfair. For example, Canadian citizens who go to a foreign country for work and have a child there have to reapply for citizenship for the child when they return. If that child then leaves the country, they will also have a hard time obtaining citizenship for their child.

Can the member give me a specific, very clear example of a situation where someone would get Canadian citizenship through Bill C‑3 in a way that he deems unfair?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île and for the work he does in Parliament.

The question is very good: Where would Bill C-3 not be fair to someone?

Bill C-3 would extend citizenship to people whose parents have been here only 1,095 days. They themselves may never come here, never want to come here, never contribute to our Canadian society, never be part of our communities and not even necessarily know either of our two official languages, yet they could be full Canadians.

Right now there is a group of people called lost Canadians, who are affected by previous legislation, which the bill also captures, but it could do it with a lot less broadening than in its current state. If the bill is not defeated entirely and something better brought forward, then it needs some significant amendments at committee that would really refine the scope of the bill to include lost Canadians, as is the intent.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that what the deputy government House leader suggested is that the first day back in the House of Commons, after Liberal prorogation, a leadership race and an election, is that somehow we should not be debating a bill on immigration, after the Liberals have broken Canada's immigration system. We know that the Liberals have increased immigration levels to an extent while the economy has shrunk. Immigration levels cannot keep up with housing supply, with jobs and with health care. There have been reports and news articles to the contrary. I think it is really important to set the record straight.

Of course Parliament should be looking at any bill that the government is proposing with regard to immigration, and so my question to my colleague is this: There are amendments that the bill needs with regard to language proficiency, the length of time somebody has to be in Canada and likely other things, like criminal record checks. Does my colleague think that the Liberals will work collaboratively and pass those amendments?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for all the tremendous work she has done in Parliament over the years, especially on the piece of legislation before us. She has really shown her expertise in this area and on this file.

The member is absolutely right; our immigration system has been severely broken by the Liberals. They are not taking into consideration the reality we live in Canada and that many things are broken that need to be fixed. Our eyes should be on that.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 12:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be back after our summer in our ridings. I know that all of us worked really hard seeing our constituents.

Throughout the summer, on top of meeting with constituents at the office and across the riding, I attended multiple fairs, festivals, parades and rodeos every weekend. It was just great to get out there and to see as many people as we did. I spent the last two weeks before coming back here meeting with municipal councils across our large riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, and meeting with farmers. We talked about the challenges we have right now in the riding. I can tell my colleagues that a lot of things came up.

In coming back here, I am glad to see that one of our priorities as Conservatives will be to deal with the cost of living crisis that has been created by the Liberal government. We are going to deal with the jobless crisis that is particularly hitting youth, including in our riding, and deal with the crime crisis that continues to terrorize our communities right now because of the catch-and-release policy of both the previous Liberal government and the current government. It is the number one issue I am hearing about.

Of course, there are a lot of concerns about how immigration has been left to go without any strategy and plan to actually support Canada and our economy. As well, we need to plan ahead in how we deal with housing, education, health care and other social infrastructure we need in order to deal with the burdening cost of having a population that has boomed over the last 10 years because of unbridled immigration.

We are going to propose solutions for that as Conservatives. We are going to make sure that everybody can have a stronger paycheque so they can afford the higher costs. However, we want to look at how we can cut back on inflation and create more jobs.

We want to make sure our streets are safe. There is going to be a lot of legislation proposed by our Conservative Party that would make our communities and our streets safer and keep the criminals behind bars.

We are going to want to make sure that we secure our borders as well, by hitting the brakes on immigration and on anything that is suppressing local jobs and creating high youth unemployment, such as the temporary foreign worker program.

I am looking forward to when we table our Canadian sovereignty bill here in the House. It would open up Canada for business. It would create a pile of jobs, cut government taxes and improve the approval times of all major nation-building projects, not through creating bureaucracy but by cutting the red tape, regulations and bad legislation that came in under the Liberal government.

I am here to speak to Bill C-3. There is a reason why the government is doing this. There was a court decision that was made.

I was in the Harper government in 2009, when we had to deal with a crisis because of Canadians of convenience. We created the first-generation limit on citizenship to ensure that Canadians who claim citizenship have a direct connection to the country, and that they value that citizenship and plan to utilize it in a responsible manner. If somebody was born in Canada, went abroad and had a child, that child would still be a Canadian under the current legislation, under the first-generation limit, but the grandchildren would not be, without any direct connection. We are saying that Canadians have to have a direct tie, value Canadian citizenship and use it responsibly.

The Ontario Superior Court ruled it was unconstitutional and asked the government to put in place a way to fix it by June 2024. Here we are with a new deadline. It has been extended about four times by the government because it has not been able to get it done. The bill before us would have to pass by November 20, but there are things in the bill that we have to change.

There are things in the bill that we are very supportive of. We are supportive of the changes in the adoption section about children who are adopted from abroad. As soon as they are adopted, they would be considered to be Canadians, and their parents would be able to bring them home and start raising them.

I have heard heartbreaking stories in my riding over the years from constituents who have actually gone to adopt children from other countries. It took years to get them back into Canada because Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada put up roadblock after roadblock. This process would take away all the red tape and bureaucracy, allowing those children who are legally adopted abroad to come to Canada immediately with their parents and start their lives here. I applaud the government for doing this. It is something that Conservatives really support.

Also, I support the proposed section in Bill C-3 with regard to lost Canadians. The issue of lost Canadians has to be rectified. A lot of people who were born here from 1977 to 1981, over roughly 50 months, had Commonwealth citizenship but could no longer claim Canadian citizenship. That happened in my riding as well. Constituents have come to my office saying they do not have citizenship, they cannot get a passport, they cannot get access to health care and they do not have the ability to travel or vote. The inherent rights of citizenship have been taken away from individuals who have lived, worked and paid taxes here their entire lives. Yes, Conservatives support this proposed section of the bill and want to see it passed quickly. Twenty thousand Canadians potentially fall under the lost Canadians mandate.

The problem we are dealing with is trying to address the issue of Canadians of convenience, which we have witnessed going back to 2006 and which we tried to rectify in 2009. The courts claimed it was unconstitutional, and now the government is coming forward with a very weak substantive connection test for people who want to inherit Canadian citizenship. To claim Canadian citizenship, people have to stay in Canada for only 1,095 days, or roughly three years. If someone is born to those who have Canadian citizenship, that person can claim it; then their children will automatically get to claim citizenship as well, although they may have never lived in Canada. This creates a problem with multi-generational Canadians who have never lived in Canada and never, ever called it home.

I will give an example. About 20% of Canadians living abroad live in the United States. They move there because they want to pay lower taxes; they do not like the situation in Canada. It has been happening for generations. They move to the United States, they work in the United States and they take on U.S. citizenship, but they maintain their Canadian citizenship. If their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren come back to Canada every year to holiday in my riding, along beautiful Lake Winnipeg or Lake Manitoba, because they have a cottage there, their children can stay there for three weeks of the year. Since this is not consecutive and can be spread out over time, at the age of 52, they can come back and claim citizenship. Then, if they have substantive health challenges going forward, they will get access to our health care system without ever paying a dime of tax or anything to Canada.

As well, once they hit age 65, they can move back to Canada without ever paying any taxes up to that point in time and start participating in GIS and OAS, our old age pension system. Twenty per cent of Canadians living abroad are in the United States, and this will also apply to them along with anyone else. This could potentially include tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who want to claim this right of citizenship, because of this erroneous proposed section in Bill C-3.

This would create two new major administrative burdens on the Government of Canada that it will have to deal with, including new proof of citizenship applications for issuing passports and a new process for the substantive connection test that has to happen. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that in the first five years, it is going to cost at least $21 million. We know it would also undermine the value of Canadian citizenship.

Conservatives believe in strong, fair and meaningful Canadian citizenship that we can all be proud of. We talk about a two-tier system. Those of us who are born here get to enjoy the benefits, and then there are those who claim Canadian citizenship by working here, living here, connecting here and raising their families here. Now we are going to make it easy for others to come who have no connection to this country in any way, shape or form. Let us stop the two-tier immigration system that Bill C-3 would start and support the amendments that the Conservatives are bringing forward.