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

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fair comment, and that is why we are proposing amendments to make this bill better. I look forward to my colleagues' proposing those recommendations. I think some of them have made some recommendations as to how to improve this bill in their comments earlier today.

We hope the Liberal government decides to adopt them so that, indeed, we have a framework that is robust for these folks who want to apply for Canadian citizenship.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here again after a summer in London engaging with constituents and listening to their concerns. I very much look forward to working with all colleagues in the House on matters of immigration, obviously, but, in general terms, we have a lot to do to serve our constituents and ensure that our country is on a very good footing going forward.

Today, obviously, with Bill C-3, we are debating an issue that, at its heart, speaks to our democracy, and that is citizenship. It was Hannah Arendt, the great philosopher, who said that citizenship is “the right to have rights”. That is because of the fact that from citizenship, all else follows in our democracy. There are no rights, there is no sense of belonging, without that fundamental value of citizenship and everything that means.

We know, for example, that all of us, or, I would assume, those of us who have been elected in a previous Parliament and those of us who are new in the chamber, newly elected, will go to citizenship ceremonies and see how special those ceremonies are. There is something quite valuable in that. I know that there is a debate and a discussion ongoing in Canada now about immigration levels, and I think the government is responding appropriately to that.

This is what I worry about, in fact, with the whole politicization of immigration that may be going on. I hope it is not going on, but I think it might be. When it comes to immigration, when that matter is politicized, we lose the understanding of the value of immigration and the sense of how special it is when citizenship comes through that process, but I digress.

We know that individuals, all of us, have natural inalienable rights: the right to dignity, the right to fundamental justice and the right to fair treatment. Citizenship strengthens that principle, because it codifies rights. In Canada, of course, we have the charter, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which stands at the heart of our democracy, making all else possible, including debates in the House of Commons. The document expresses, in the clearest terms, the rights of all of us and the rights that come, again, from citizenship. Without those rights, democracy cannot be said to exist.

The House is now considering Bill C-3. I give credit to anyone who has spoken on the matter but, in particular, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands made a spirited speech talking about court rulings of the past. I believe the NDP has put this on record, and I believe the Bloc has put it on record as well, that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling of December 2023 is something that cannot be ignored. The justices, in fact, have said that the problem that needs to be responded to by the government is the fact that citizenship is two-tiered at the present moment.

What does that mean? The court came to that decision because a Canadian who obtains citizenship either through birth or through the immigration process can freely transmit that citizenship to their children, but this is not true for a Canadian who is born abroad. Bill C-3 seeks to change this, so that Canadians born abroad can transfer that citizenship to their children if their children are also born abroad, provided that there is a substantial connection to Canada that is established. That connection is cumulative.

I heard the hon. member speak on the Conservative side, taking issue with that. One thing that he did not mention, interestingly, and I think this is key to this whole discussion, is that the 1,095 days that stands as the substantial connection test in the legislation, which is three years, is not drawn from thin air but represents and takes its cue from the requirement that permanent residents have when they seek to go through the immigration process and obtain citizenship. That is also a three-year requirement in terms of spending time in Canada.

The other point that cannot be lost on us is the fact that we live in a modern age in which mobility is crucial to so many jobs. Think of military officials or diplomats, or individuals who spend their time working abroad for non-governmental organizations. They need to be paid attention to here. We should put ourselves in their position.

If someone is in a position, in a role, where they were born abroad and do not have this ability to transfer citizenship, even though they have a Canadian tie, then there is an issue. The substantial connection test allows for that to be acknowledged and brought to bear in the force of law.

If my colleagues have concerns on the merits of the bill, then of course they can raise them at committee. However, I do not want to see a situation where this bill is obstructed needlessly. There is a court deadline, as we just heard. That court deadline is in November of this year. It is a deadline that must be adhered to. Otherwise, we would have a very significant gap in the law.

The reality is, if we are dealing with, as we are, a matter of citizenship and rectifying an issue that exists as identified by the court, then there is a special responsibility on all of us to work together so that the outcome ensures fundamental justice, ensures consistent citizenship and meets a particular standard. That 1,095-day period is exactly that; it is three years.

It is, as I say, not arbitrary by any means, but draws from existing Canadian law, and specifically immigration policy, relating to permanent residency, and that is why I think the bill needs to be supported. Certainly our side will be getting behind the bill. I hear the same from the Bloc. I hear the same from the NDP. I do not hear that from the Conservatives, but I hope that, at committee, their concerns will be assuaged somehow. We will have experts there to speak to the matter on a range of points that Conservatives wish to raise.

We have something very substantive here and I urge colleagues to get behind it.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, two points have been raised a number of times today, with the legislation as it is proposed, relating to language requirements and criminal history.

I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary whether there is any indication, any acceptance or agreement from the government that these things should be considered. We consider them with all other types of immigrants to Canada. We do not want to bring criminals into our country. I think there is a widely established agreement among Canadians. It is the same with language. It is very important that people coming to Canada can speak either English or French. I would like to know the parliamentary secretary's thoughts on those two points.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the hon. member on the committee responsible for immigration.

The Conservatives continue to bring up matters of crime and tie them to this bill. Again, it opens the door to the argument, wide open in fact, that they are trying to politicize immigration. I know the hon. member is not trying to do that; he is a respected member of this House.

I will focus on the other aspects of his question, only to say that there is nothing in this bill that is inconsistent with existing citizenship requirements. The bill simply seeks to rectify an existing and very significant gap in the law. We need consistent citizenship, and this is exactly what Bill C-3 would achieve.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that this bill is a revival of a previous bill and a response to a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court dating from late 2023, which gave the government six months to comply.

My question is as follows: Has the six-month deadline passed?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the court provided its perspective on a very important matter for the House, and there is an issue.

For that reason, we cannot get bogged down in what has happened in the past. I am not here to speak about the past. We can spend a great deal of time on that, but the courts have recognized that there are issues. They have put it to this House to rectify and they have given extensions when that has not happened in the past. We have an opportunity to do what is right. I urge colleagues to get behind it. I know my colleague will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would provide his thoughts on how we could continue to have the debate and even look at possible amendments. The members opposite have talked about the possibility of amendments.

Could the member provide his thoughts on how we could further advance the legislation and deal with the issue of people who should be citizens not being citizens because of a sense of unfairness within the current law that the Superior Court made a ruling on?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who is among the most dedicated parliamentarians I have ever worked with in almost 10 years of serving the people of London Centre.

I would say to the member what I have said throughout my time as an MP looking at legislation. The place to offer amendments and address concerns is not always in the House of Commons, where one can do that through debate and discussion, of course. Committees enjoy a special place in the life of this democracy. If Conservatives, as seems to be the case, are getting ready to obstruct a very important piece of legislation for political reasons, that is not just wrong on substance. There is a place for them to raise issues, not to obstruct there too.

The committee level is where members can put forward amendments, call witnesses and do any number of things. Let us get serious about what we are doing in this place; obstructing important legislation is not being serious.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first speech that I have had an opportunity to prepare for since the last election, although I did speak spontaneously a little bit, prior to the House adjourning for the summer.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank the voters of Ponoka—Didsbury. This is the seventh time I have been sent to this place. This is the third different constituency and area that I have represented, even though I have a core common area that I have represented for the almost 20 years I have been here. I do want to thank those voters who put their trust in me for the first time, those who have put their trust in me for about 10 years and those who have kept their trust in me for almost 20 years. I will do what I can to continue to earn and keep their trust and will work hard on their behalf.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank some notable campaign volunteers and people who helped me in my campaign. Larry Schmidik is someone who I just met a little while ago. He housed all of our sign equipment at his shop and was very instrumental and helpful. Brenda Steenson is not even from the constituency. She is from Red Deer and was in the constituency prior to the last boundary review. She came out and spent a lot of time on the campaign trail. Of course, I want to thank Angie Stroud, my campaign manager; Alan Marsh, who came out and did all the social media; Ross Moore, who helped with signs, Al Siebring, who came into the office and did a lot of work; Onsy Tawadrous and his daughter Laura, who came out and helped me door knock in Sylvan Lake; Sean Stroud, David Klein and Doug Will, who helped with signs; Mike Muzicka and his partner Lisa, who helped me tremendously in Olds and did the financial books for the campaign; Daniel Schweitzer, Kirby Wollstone, Richard Bone, Lawrence McKelvey, Devin Haltzer, Dalen Kemp, Chris Thiessen, Dustin Kubelka, Wade Collins, Shad Thevenaz, Abigail Schimke, Kevin Bender and Rocky Downton. Those are some of the key people who actually helped make the campaign a tremendous success and led us to a very convincing result in the new constituency of Ponoka—Didsbury, a constituency where I am just getting to know some of the people.

I was just at Old Stoberfest, a unique Bavarian twist to a classic Alberta rodeo. If colleagues ever get a chance to come on up from Calgary to have a look at Old Stoberfest, there is nothing like having cowboy schnitzel and beer to enjoy a rodeo.

However, I do want to talk about this bill that the Liberal government has put forward. I want to talk about the reflections that I have had in meeting with my constituents recently during the election.

Being a Canadian certainly is a birthright for some of us. For some of us, it is the only birthright that we have. For those who want to become Canadian citizens, of course, once they get that right, it comes with a tremendous number of privileges but also a lot of opportunities. Canadian citizenship is a promise. It is also a duty, faithfully kept, of a shared identity and values that holds together millions of people across one of the largest geopolitical land masses on planet Earth. Citizenship is not a handout just to be given away frivolously. It is a covenant where there are rights on one hand and responsibilities on the other. When we cheapen it, we erode the trust that binds our people together and lets strangers call each other neighbours. We are, and should remain, a compassionate and welcoming nation.

Conservatives agree wholeheartedly, but compassion does not mean we dilute and cheapen our standard of what it means to be a citizen of this country. We need to ensure citizenship that is strong, fair and meaningful. Immigration done right and rooted in the merit and respect for the rule of law should be the standard gateway to receive the privilege and the right of being a Canadian citizen. Bill C-3 fails this test and opens the door to abuse that removes strong criteria for ties to Canada. It seeks to devalue what it means to be Canadian.

In 2009, under Prime Minister Harper, Parliament set a principled boundary through the first-generation limit. The principle was reasonable and necessary: end the spread of so-called Canadians of convenience while ensuring fairness for families. The first-generation limit drew a bright line and preserved the idea of citizenship by descent. Conferring a path to citizenship to those born abroad required that they have a parent who was Canadian. This preserves the idea that citizenship and the privileges and rights that come with it are earned.

Bill C-3 removes that balance and replaces it with an extraordinarily weak, substantive connection test, which is 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada at any point in a parent's life with no criminal background check, as a precondition for passing citizenship on to people who may never have set foot once in Canada.

In practice, this bill would allow minimal presence to allow for the claiming of citizenship by people who have never lived under our laws, never contributed to our communities and may never intend to actually do so. It is an abdication of these basic standards.

Conservatives support restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and equal treatment for adopted children. Those targeted fixes are fair and consistent with the dignity of Canadian citizenship, but Bill C-3 would go far beyond these. It would effectively create an unlimited chain migration route without merit, and in doing so would cheapen the value of our national identity and what many have earned by building their life contributing to our country. I am not hearing this just from people who were born in Canada. I am hearing this largely from people who moved here and followed the law and got their citizenship the traditional way.

Why does this matter? It matters because citizenship is the gateway to our most consequential rights: voting for those who govern, accessing social programs and carrying the protection of a Canadian passport. Those rights are paid for in taxes, in service and in the daily investment Canadians make by building their lives, their families and their businesses here in Canada.

Detaching those rights from the duties that I have just outlined would be profoundly unfair. First, it is unfair to immigrants who followed the rules. The people who move here meet strict residency requirements, pass language and knowledge tests, work, pay taxes and then proudly take their oath to citizenship. It would devalue that hard-earned commitment.

Second, it is unfair to Canadians who are already stretched. Health care, pensions and housing are not infinite. They are financed by the people who live and work here. Bill C-3 would be extending full citizenship rights to those who have never lived here, without a serious test of connection and without basic security checks. Canadians see that and they are rightly frustrated.

Under the Liberals, the immigration system has been expanded in ways that outpace Canada's capacity to integrate newcomers, eroding confidence in our system. A responsible approach should work for Canadians and those who wish to become Canadian. Instead, the Liberals are opting for a system that could further strain our public services by a surge of new citizens living abroad who have never contributed to our country. That is not acceptable. Being welcoming cannot mean trading away the inheritance of the value of citizenship that makes Canada a country worth joining.

Bill C-3 says people could get the full rights of citizenship without ever living here, allowing the full bundle of citizenship rights to flow to people without having lived under Canadian law, with no contribution to our common institutions and with no demonstrated intention to build one. Many newcomers come to this country with the intention to work hard, follow the rules, pay taxes and learn our values and norms. Rightly, they are then rewarded for that commitment with citizenship. When we say that people can have that same status without having lived here or contributed, it does not make things more fair. We erase fairness and devalue the effort of those who earned their place the right way. It is a bad policy that unjustly untethers rights from obligations.

There must be significant changes to Bill C-3. For starters, it needs to require a real consecutive presence in Canada, and it must require criminal background checks. We can and should restore citizenship to lost Canadians and ensure equal treatment for adopted children, without detonating the first-generation limit that has safeguarded our system since 2009. The Liberals have claimed that they are open to constructive changes, and we intend to take them at their word. If they truly want a bill that strengthens citizenship, they will back amendments that give real substance to the law, protect security and uphold fairness for those who have put down roots here. There is a path to consensus here if we choose it. Let us keep what is rightly targeted, lost Canadians and adopted children, and stop what is reckless.

For the immigrants who chose Canada and earned citizenship the right way, we are protecting the value of what they have achieved. To those who hope to become Canadians, we welcome their commitment, and we will keep the standards high because we believe they can meet them. To Canadians who worry that the system no longer works for them, it can and must.

The government said it was open to amendments, so it can prove it. It can support a real connection test, basic security screening and targeted fixes without blowing a hole in our national fabric and the foundation of our citizenship.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way might have said this is the first substantive speech he has given since the last election, but he has been around for many years. He knows the importance of a minority versus a majority government. We hear constantly that the Conservatives are not feeling comfortable with the legislation. The member knows that any opposition party can prevent legislation from ultimately going to committee by just continuously talking about it.

Would the member not agree, as many Conservatives across the way have said this, that there are aspects of the legislation that should be dealt with so that people who are not Canadian can be deemed Canadian? We have a superior court ruling on the issue. Would he not agree that many of the discussions and debate can continue at the committee?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, but it should not take away from the fact that every member in this place has the right and responsibility to speak to important legislation on behalf of their constituents. Not every member has the ability to conduct that same type of cross-examination and debate at the committee stage. It is a subset of the House, so until the House has adequately dealt with this, Conservatives who feel like speaking to this should be given the opportunity.

I wonder if the member is implying that we can expect closure at any minute.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was born abroad. My dad was in the Canadian military in the 1960s when I was born. There were other children born in the 1950s who were not automatically Canadian, and that caused some problems. There were some important and necessary changes. Conservatives believe in these changes, but we do not believe in a free-for-all.

Former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau declared, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, which makes us the first postnational state. Why is the government actively undermining the value of Canadian citizenship by handing it out to people who do not have any connection to Canada?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are rightly frustrated with the last 10 years of governance by former prime minister Justin Trudeau and now the new Prime Minister. It is the same political party. It is the same people sitting across the aisle from me, who I have seen for the last 10 years, with the same failed approach to dealing with things.

There is nothing the government will not give away to stay in power. It has devalued the value of our dollar. It has completely increased the cost of our national debt and what it means to Canadians. It has ruined virtually all trust in almost all of the institutions we have, including our citizenship process, our national defence and so on, and now, of course, it is going to devalue citizenship.

It is ironic that one of the first things the Liberals changed when they came into power was allowing people who do not live in Canada to vote. That might have something to do with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome back an old friend, and now I just have to learn how to say Ponoka—Didsbury. It also seems to me that the hon. member has brushed with greatness, within his own caucus perhaps, with the change of the riding name, though I do not think the map changed, as he is right next to Battle River—Crowfoot.

I would like to return to the question of whether this extends new benefits that are not automatically understood by law. As much as the hon. member praised the Conservative Party changes in 2009, does he not think it is a problem that the Court found those changes were not charter compliant?