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.

Motions in Amendment

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I have the honour of speaking today in support of Bill C‑3 and to highlight how it strengthens the legislative framework of Canadian citizenship. Following second reading, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration completed its review of the bill and heard from numerous witnesses.

Many wanted to know exactly how many people will be affected by the coming into force of this legislation. What is the exact number of Canadians who have been stripped of their citizenship? The term “lost Canadians” has generally been used to describe people who have lost or never had Canadian citizenship due to certain obsolete provisions of citizenship legislation.

The majority of cases of Canadians who lost their citizenship have been resolved through amendments to the Citizenship Act in 2009 and 2015. These changes have enabled certain individuals to regain or obtain Canadian citizenship if they had lost it. However, a small group of people and their descendants remain excluded. These are the people that will mainly be affected by Bill C‑3.

The bill also applies to people who are not typically considered lost Canadians, such as those who were born or adopted abroad by Canadian parents who are citizens by descent and who are affected by the first-generation limit, which was implemented in 2009.

One of the main reasons why we do not know the exact number of lost Canadians or citizens by descent is that the government has not kept a registry of births abroad since the enactment of the Citizenship Act in 1977. There is no way of knowing about these births unless the parent contacts Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC.

A Canadian parent can request a citizenship certificate for their child who is born abroad. When a child is adopted abroad, the parent can apply for direct citizenship. This process enables the government to assess eligibility for citizenship on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the child's citizenship is based on that of the parent, not on their place of birth. It is not necessary to register the birth abroad or to declare the parents' country of residence to establish a person's Canadian citizenship.

In short, birth registration is typically the responsibility of the country where the birth takes place. IRCC is only informed of citizenship by descent cases when an application for proof of Canadian citizenship is filed, either by the person concerned or by one of their parents.

To better anticipate future applications, it may be useful to look at the number of past cases. The legislative amendments made in 2009 and 2015, specifically addressing the situation of lost Canadians, allowed more than 20,000 people to contact IRCC to obtain proof of citizenship after their status was corrected. The vast majority of cases have been resolved as a result of these legislative changes.

We know that the department has not seen a significant increase in applications for proof of citizenship as a result of these two sets of legislative amendments. Some citizens lost their status for reasons related to the old rules for retaining citizenship. Typically, an average of 35 to 40 applications a year for restoring citizenship through a discretionary measure are received. However, these have been on a downward trend, and we expect that to continue.

IRCC received about 4,200 applications between January 2024 and July 2025 from people affected by the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent who qualify for the interim measure. These figures suggest that the remaining number of lost Canadians and their descendants is relatively small, probably in the tens of thousands. They are expected to gradually apply as they become aware of their rights.

I would now like to outline the objectives of Bill C‑3. If passed, this bill would automatically grant citizenship to anyone born abroad to a Canadian parent before the legislation's coming into force. It would also apply to people who are currently unable to obtain citizenship by descent because of the first-generation limit, including the remaining lost Canadians and their descendants.

Once the law comes into force, any child born outside the country to a Canadian parent who was themselves born outside the country will be considered a Canadian citizen from birth if the parent in question can prove a substantial connection to Canada, that is, a cumulative physical presence of three years in the country before the child is born.

We cannot predict how many children will be born abroad after this legislation passes. However, as long as the Canadian parent who was born outside the country was physically present in Canada for at least three years before the child's birth, they can pass their citizenship on to the child.

Some members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration raised important questions about foreign adoptions. As much as possible, the government wants to continue to treat children adopted abroad and those born abroad in the same way, while following clear rules regarding how parents pass on their citizenship.

Any child adopted abroad by a Canadian parent before the new law came into effect would now be eligible for direct citizenship, even if they had previously been excluded due to the first-generation limit on Canadian citizenship by descent. The committee analyzed these measures carefully. At this stage, the bill remains the most equitable and practical solution.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that key provisions of the first-generation limit are unconstitutional. It has suspended its decision until November 20, 2025, to give Parliament time to create a new framework. If the bill is not passed by that date, Canadian citizenship could be granted indefinitely to future generations born outside Canada, with no time limit and no requirement for a meaningful connection to the country.

However, certain groups will continue to be disadvantaged by the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent. Many of them will not become citizens or will not have access to citizenship because the order will be imposed before Bill C-3 comes into force. This includes people adopted abroad by Canadian parents beyond the first generation, lost Canadians under section 8 who lost their citizenship status as a result of the age 28 rule, and certain individuals born abroad prior to April 1, 1949.

This scenario would create legal uncertainties for families and complicate the application of the Citizenship Act. That is why it is crucial that we pass Bill C‑3 quickly.

I hope these explanations will provide some clarity around Bill C‑3 and pave the way for it to pass so that the remaining lost Canadians can have their citizenship restored, so that access to citizenship by descent beyond the first generation is expanded in a clear and inclusive manner, and so that we avoid creating more lost Canadians in the future.

Passing this bill will allow Canada to take a decisive step forward with respect to lost Canadians and to strengthen the integrity of our citizenship framework for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Liberals are about to remove an amendment the committee made to include a language requirement in the bill.

Language is a unifier in Canada, and the Conservatives worked with the Bloc Québécois to ensure that somebody who would be receiving citizenship through this chain migration bill would at least have to pass a language test that is similar to the one for somebody who is receiving citizenship through naturalization.

Why would the Liberals table an amendment that would create a two-tiered citizenship class, one that denigrates Canada's language rights as they relate to citizenship acquisition?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her great question.

Canada has two official languages, and we want to protect them. However, this is about fixing a problem caused by a framework. We need to give these citizens the right to their citizenship through legislation.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Terrebonne, for her eloquence and, of course, for her presentation. My question concerns the substantial connection test for members of the second generation.

Why is this test necessary for members of the second generation born after the legislation comes into force, but not for those born before it comes into force?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, moving forward, this legislation will ensure that the opportunity to pass on citizenship is subject to reasonable limits.

Prescriptive application of the substantial connection test is meant to strike a balance between setting reasonable limits on citizenship by descent, in order to preserve the right to and privilege of Canadian citizenship, and ensuring the flexibility and inclusivity needed to address the cases of individuals previously excluded from citizenship by descent based on the first-generation limit.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the amendments that were voted on in committee, there is this notion of righting wrongs as well as setting guidelines and ensuring that people who become Canadians continue to maintain a genuine connection to their new country.

Can my colleague discuss another key amendment, which provides for the publication of an annual report to determine the impact of this legislation?

My colleague referred to a few thousand people but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there would be up to 150,000 new citizens within the first five years. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to understand the impact of the laws that we pass.

Why is my colleague moving an amendment today that ultimately goes against transparency and accountability?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, this bill is about transparency. The majority of cases of lost Canadians were resolved through legislative amendments. Between 2019 and 2023, we received an average of 48,000 applications for certificates and proof of citizenship. About 80% of these applications came from people born abroad. We will follow up on those applications for citizenship.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this was court ordered. Why is it dangerous for parliamentarians to not only not uphold court orders, but also do it in a manner that violates our Constitution, which is, in fact, the rule of law?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Bill C‑3 was introduced in response to this request from the court and seeks to create a framework in which IRCC will be able to proceed in a fair and inclusive manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a mess. What we are dealing with today is an abject mess. I have to explain to the people who might be watching what has happened and what we are dealing with today.

The Liberals had a court ruling. There was a court ruling at a lower court that said the first-generation limit of citizenship by descent could go on indefinitely. The previous Conservative government had put in place a rule that said that, if somebody is going to pass down their citizenship to a child born abroad, they could only do that for one generation, and that somebody who obtains citizenship by descent has to have a substantive connection to Canada. This was done in the late aughts to prevent something called citizenship of convenience, as we saw cases in the 2000s where Canada was called on to evacuate people who had never paid taxes and who had Canadian citizenship, but who had never really been in Canada. They had acquired citizenship through descent. When Canada evacuated some of these people, most of them just went back. That is why the first-generation limit was put in place. Rather than challenge the court ruling, the Liberals said, “Yeah, okay, we'll just agree with the court”.

I cannot believe this, but one of my colleagues asked why the government would challenge a court ruling. Why would we do that? It is because Parliament is supreme. In fact, the correct answer from the government on that, which I cannot believe members did not know, is that, per section 91(25) of the Constitution Act, Parliament has the authority to amend the Citizenship Act to impose new restrictions on how citizenship is acquired in our country.

Why does Parliament have the right to do that? Why does Parliament have the imperative to do that? It is because Canadian citizenship has value. It should not be appointed judges who can do that. It should not be anybody other than duly elected representatives talking about what restrictions we place on how somebody obtains Canadian citizenship. That is why we have the Citizenship Act. There are limits and rules for how people can acquire Canadian citizenship.

About a decade ago, the Liberals came into power. A lot of the far left principles that we see in the NDP espouse something called postnationalism. This is an ideological belief. The former prime minister actually said there is no national identity in Canada. There is no national identity. There is now a minister of national identity in the Liberal Party who said there is not one way to be Canadian. Then the new Prime Minister, during the election campaign, when asked what it means to be Canadian, said it is to be not American.

We are at a juncture in the country right now. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. This should concern all parliamentarians. The social fabric of our country is breaking down because of a decade of what we have seen from federal leaders in this country. It is that concept of postnationalism, where there is no national identity, there is no value to our citizenship and we can just eliminate first-generation rules to allow people to obtain citizenship by descent in a way that is easier than it is for people who have naturalized to this country.

This is why Conservatives worked with the Bloc Québécois to amend this disastrous chain migration bill at committee. Conservatives put forward some very common-sense amendments to try to ensure that people who are obtaining citizenship by descent through this chain migration bill would have to go through the same processes as somebody who is obtaining citizenship through naturalization, so that at the very least, we are not creating a two-tier citizenship acquisition system in this country.

I want to thank my Bloc colleagues for working with us and passing these amendments. The amendments we put forward were very common sense. We sought to harmonize the residency requirements that somebody has to have to obtain citizenship through naturalization with citizenship by descent, so they have to live here at least three out of five years to have the provisions in this bill apply to their descendants. That seems reasonable to me. It is a reasonable amendment.

The second thing Conservatives did was amend the bill to have a language acquisition requirement, the same language acquisition requirement that is there for people who want to obtain citizenship through naturalization. It is the exact wording that is already in the Citizenship Act. We said this is reasonable. Why is it reasonable? It is because language is a unifier, and language is part of our national identity.

There are two official languages in Canada. They are very important to what it means to be Canadian. They are integral and core, especially in Quebec and other parts of the country where there is a whole concept of national identity that is firmly entrenched and attached to language. We made that amendment. It is common sense. It is the same that is already in the Citizenship Act.

We also said maybe somebody should have to take a citizenship test. It is the same requirement of somebody who wants to naturalize to Canada to take a citizenship test. They have to read the citizenship guide and have a basic understanding of what Canada is and what our rules are. Our national identity needs to be rooted in the fact that we all have a duty for not just the privileges associated with citizenship but also the responsibilities. These are things taken right from the citizenship guide. For example, there is a requirement to abandon violent and extreme ideology upon coming to Canada. Anybody who is or wants to be Canadian must abandon violent and extreme ideology. It is right in the citizenship guide. Conservatives amended the legislation to have a citizenship test. This is the same as it is for somebody who wants to obtain citizenship through naturalization.

As my Bloc colleague raised in a question earlier, Conservatives wanted a report to Parliament on how many people have been given citizenship by descent because of the fact that the Liberals did not challenge this ruling. They could have challenged this ruling, but they chose not to. They chose unlimited citizenship by descent with residency requirements that are weaker than what people who naturalize to this country have.

The reason I am so fired up is that I have watched, through a decade of Liberal postnationalism, which they have not just said but have also operationalized, the eroding of our democratic institutions. We have seen their catch-and-release bail policies over the last year and the crime that has wrought on our streets. It is the erosion of the justice system. We have seen the censorship bills they have put in place and the erosion of free speech. While we might not agree on certain types of policy or how to get to certain types of outcomes, if those democratic institutions are eroded through a postnational ideology, and we tell the world that our citizenship does not have value by gutting a common-sense amendment like this, it would further erode the social fabric of our country.

What is the outcome of that? It would erode Canada's pluralism. The only way that pluralism and multiculturalism can exist is through a democracy that has strong respect for the rule of law, for institutions such as freedom of speech and unifying things such as language. Mark my words, the Liberals continuing their far left postnationalism by gutting common-sense amendments on things like language requirements will only further degrade Canada's pluralism.

We are at a moment in history when we have to start restoring the value of Canadian citizenship, not further degrading it. I beg colleagues to ensure the amendments that were passed in a multipartisan way at committee are kept so that we can keep the value of Canadian citizenship and reverse the decade of damage that the far left Liberal postnational ideology has done to the value of Canadian citizenship and our pride in national identity.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that Parliament is supreme and we should, therefore, ignore the ruling of the court. I would suggest to her that, rather, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is supreme, and it is the role of the court to advise parliamentarians when our laws exceed the capacity of the charter.

I would ask the member to please comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals rolled over on the court ruling. They said that Parliament should not have a debate on this. They allowed the first-generation limit to be eliminated by a lower court.

Parliament is supreme. I cited the part of our laws through which we have the right to determine what Canadian citizenship is, and the Liberals took that debate away from us. They had to extend the limit on the court ruling because they had screwed it up so badly that they did not have anything in place to prevent unlimited citizenship by descent. It is preposterous.

If the Liberals think that the court ruling should not be challenged, then why are we here? Why do we not just give everything to the judges? I say no.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, today's debate raises important questions about democracy. What role do judges play and what role do legislators play? The judge said it was discriminatory and told legislators to do their job and determine what the real connection is between a Canadian born abroad and his or her country. A guideline has been proposed, a reasonable limit that mirrors the immigration system. That is the job of legislators. It is not up to judges to decide everything, because otherwise we would have a government of judges, and that is not what we want.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about the state of our parliamentary democracy if everything that is decided in committee is overturned when the report is presented to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot wrap my brain around what is happening. We had members of Parliament stand up in here today and say that we should never, as a Parliament, exercise the authority our constituents have given to us when a court has ruled on something. We have the power to make legislation. We have the power in our charter to overturn court rulings.

The Liberals made a deliberate choice not to challenge legislation that speaks to the value of Canadian citizenship and how something so precious can be applied. They essentially eliminated rules for that. That is bananas. It is antithetical to the principle of parliamentary supremacy.

I am so proud to stand here and say that Canadian citizenship has value and that it is worth having this debate in the House of Commons. I believe there should be a language requirement; I believe there should be security checks, and I believe there should be a citizenship test. Anybody who does not believe this needs to give their head a shake.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for the passion and knowledge she brings to this debate. My question is, why? There is so much value to Canadian citizenship that is recognized around the world. Why does the government want to cheapen it?