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

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last decade we have heard a lot about what Canada can give to the world. We had the citizenship and immigration department tweet last week that Canada is essentially the walk-in clinic for the world.

It is about time this place started talking about what the responsibilities are of being a citizen as well, such as respect for the rule of law and upholding freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to worship without persecution or fear. Those things are under threat right now, and it is because of 10 years of the Liberal government erasing our national symbols and saying that in order for us to move forward, we have to constantly wallow in the past.

I am not saying there are not things we should be correcting, but if we are not talking about the responsibilities associated with citizenship, our pluralism will not survive.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here is that the Conservatives, more than a decade ago, brought in a law that is in violation of the charter. I know the member is a feminist, and this violation hits women the most. That is what the court found.

If we stand with women and their rights, why would we not ensure these amendments are passed?

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

Mr. Speaker, why? It is because the member opposite is so radically far left and so postnational that she believes people who get citizenship by descent should not have to take a citizenship test, which includes such things as that female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice or that people need to reject violent and extreme ideology.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, they are heckling at me for the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order, please.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This bill responds to a court ruling.

Let us take a look at the historical background. In 2009, the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to prohibit the transmission of citizenship beyond the second generation for children born outside Canada, even if their parents are Canadian. In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down provisions of this law on the grounds that they violated section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which deals with mobility rights and states that every citizen has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada, as well as section 15 of the charter, which deals with equality rights. The parties challenging the law represented seven families that were discriminated against by this law, and the court recognized that the ban introduced in this law was unfair, especially for those who were forced to choose between the birthplace of their child and the transmission of citizenship.

The case of the Brooke-Bjorkquist family illustrates the problem perfectly. A child was born in Geneva in 2010 to Canadian parents who were working for the government abroad. Despite the fact that this child was born to two Canadian parents and she returned to Canada at the age of one, she would not be able to follow in her parents' footsteps under the provisions of the act. She would not be able to choose to work abroad at some point in her career and give birth to a child abroad, because her child would not be able to obtain Canadian citizenship. That is ridiculous because the child was only born in Switzerland because of circumstances related to her parents' work and she spent most of her life in Canada.

The bill seeks to correct this type of injustice, which is why the Bloc Québécois supported it at second reading. Today, this bill has been sent back to the House from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for report stage consideration. At this point, we must ask ourselves a very simple question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees?

After reviewing 26 briefs, hearing from 14 witnesses, holding two meetings and conducting four hours of work, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is sending the bill back to us with nine amendments. These nine amendments were adopted by a majority of committee members. What is the purpose of parliamentary committees in the context of a minority government like the one we have now? Are they a necessary but futile step, at the end of which the House overturns all the amendments that the parliamentary committee adopted by a majority vote? Alternatively, are committees a place where the will of the people can be expressed by representatives of recognized opposition parties?

I would remind members that, in April, the people elected more opposition members than government members. Were they sending a message? Did the people not give power to one party while asking that the other parties be more involved in law-making? I think so.

Yvon Pinard, the then president of the Privy Council, said the following about committees on November 29, 1982, and I quote: “Experience has shown that smaller and more flexible committees, when entrusted with interesting matters, can have a very positive impact on the development of our parliamentary system, upgrade the role of Members of Parliament, sharpen their interest and ultimately enable this institution [or committees] to produce much more enlightened measures that better meet the wishes of the Canadian people.” I think the last part of that statement is the most relevant part.

The bill as improved by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is a bill that contains more informed measures and, in our opinion, better reflects the wishes of the public. However, the government now wants to revisit the work that has been done and undo the improvements made in committee. It should be noted that the amendments now being proposed in the House come from the government, but also from a member of a non-recognized party.

It could be argued that, although that party is not recognized, its members should still be involved in the law-making process. That is difficult to dispute. The real question is, how involved can they be? Can they go so far as to erase almost all the work done in committee, to the point of setting aside the votes cast in committee by representatives of recognized parties? This seems to be at odds with the message sent by voters, who wanted to give more power to opposition parties.

There seems to be a risk that, at the end of the process, we will ask ourselves the same question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees in the current Parliament?

The Bloc Québécois asks that the work done by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be respected. We ask this because we believe it is a matter of parliamentary democracy and respect for the will of the voters, but also, in our opinion, because the amendments adopted in committee improve the bill amending citizenship.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-3 as amended by the committee. The bill was amended so that the requirements for passing on citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad would align in every way with the requirements applied to naturalized citizens going through the immigration process. Bill C-3 proposed that citizenship be granted to children if one parent had spent at least 1,095 days in the country, the equivalent of about three years, over an indeterminate period prior to the child's birth. The Bloc Québécois supported an amendment to include this 1,095-day requirement, but over a five-year period instead, to match the requirement for people seeking citizenship through the immigration process. This amendment corrects injustices and ensures that new Canadians have a real and substantial connection to their new country, not a tenuous one.

Furthermore, we also supported an amendment to require citizenship applicants over the age of 18 to meet additional requirements. Like naturalized citizens, they would have to pass a language test, pass a knowledge and citizenship test and undergo a security assessment.

Another amendment adopted in committee establishes some degree of accountability by requiring that a report be tabled in Parliament containing the annual statistics on the number of citizenships granted under the new law. It is important to know what kind of impact this new legislation is having. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the new rules could result in 150,000 new Canadian citizens over the next five years. That is more than the entire population of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, and more than the vast majority of ridings in the House. That is a significant number of people. I think it is important to understand what effect this new legislation will have.

We believe that these amendments respond to the court's ruling calling on us to determine what constitutes a real connection to Canada. By aligning the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad with those for individuals seeking citizenship through immigration, we are ensuring a level playing field for everyone.

However, the amendments that the government and the member from an unrecognized party are now proposing to the House seek to restore the amended clauses to their original form, except for the three requirements regarding security assessments, the French language and citizenship tests for people aged 18 to 55. At least that is something.

Apart from those three things, the amendments introduced by the government seek to overturn the work of the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The government's intent is to restore the bill to the way it was before it was studied in committee, reinstating the requirement that one of the parents must have been present for 1,095 days over an indefinite period, rather than within the five years preceding the birth of the child, in order for the child to obtain Canadian citizenship by birth. In our opinion, it is reasonable to require the parent to have been present in Canada for about three of the five years before the birth.

The amendment also removes the requirement to table an annual report in Parliament on the number of citizens who have benefited from the law in order to obtain citizenship. Why oppose a transparency measure? Why refuse to learn what effect this new law will have on the number of Canadian citizens? I do not understand this.

That is why we will vote against the amendments proposed by the government and the member at report stage and support the version of the bill as amended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. These amendments remove important safeguards that were added in committee by a majority vote in order to avoid a situation where, in righting wrongs, we leave the door too wide open, causing citizenship to lose its value.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Citizenship Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised at the Bloc's take on the issue. The member's argument seemed to be that, because the majority of the standing committee allowed the amendment the Bloc and the Conservatives worked together on to pass at committee, the House of Commons does not have the right to make a change. As we know, the House of Commons does have a right to do that.

Even though the government has a minority in seats, if the majority of the members vote in one direction, does the member believe the standing committee should accept it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees?

I understand what my colleague is saying, and of course, the House is sovereign in its votes, but the committee, which includes members of recognized opposition parties, worked hard to improve the bill.

Today, the government is trying to undermine the work of the committee by joining forces with an unrecognized opposition party. Of course, that party has the right to have its say, but should that mean completely undoing all of the committee's work?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, common-sense amendments were passed in committee. The NDP is now seeking to overturn them, even though it is not recognized as an official party in the House. That is not fair. What does my colleague think?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking her question in my language.

Obviously, that is basically what we are saying. My fear is that this is going to make the entire process futile and pointless. In other words, we will meet in committee, decide on certain things, then return to the House and tear up everything we did.

I think we need to find a way to include the amendments we have proposed. These are reasonable amendments that promote transparency. If we are going to welcome 150,000 new citizens over the next few years, it would make sense to be able to enlighten the House and the entire population on the impact this bill is going to have. This is quite important.

What we are asking for is accountability and transparency. It seems to me that everyone should agree on that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague's speech laid out our basic argument quite clearly.

As far as the numbers go, we disagree with representatives of the NDP and the government on the amount people this would affect. However, if there is one person held in high regard by all members of the House, that would be the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He said that a lot more people would be affected than the Liberal Party or the NDP seem to be letting on.

Can my colleague shed some light on that for us?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we support the principle behind Bill C‑3.

In the course of our work and research, we realized that, of course, wrongs need to be made right, and we agree in principle, although the impact of this could be quite significant. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us. Up to 150,000 more people could become Canadian citizens unless we establish guidelines. At the least, we need to know what the future will look like once the bill is passed.

In the meantime, we think that the guidelines we are proposing will help correct injustices, as long as the parent of the person born abroad was living in Canada for three of the five years preceding that person's birth. We consider that entirely reasonable.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address the legislation through its amendments. I hope I can provide some clarification as to why we are here today having this particular debate.

It is important to recognize that amendments and changes were made to the Citizenship Act under the former government, a Conservative government that the leader of the Conservative Party was very prominent in. Through the Ontario Superior Court, we found out it was in violation of rights. Ultimately, we are here today because of a Superior Court order about an issue that Bill C-3 is attempting to resolve.

We have a deadline. The court has indicated that as long as we can pass the legislation by November 20, then the system will in essence stay intact. I have been working in the area of immigration and citizenship for many years, and I really believe something of great significance has been overlooked or, at the very least, not talked about enough.

There are three ways in which one acquires citizenship. The first is the most common and recognized way; a person is born, raised and lives in Canada, as is the case for a high percentage of members in the House.

Another way is through naturalization. Ultimately, naturalization means that individuals are able to come to Canada through some form of an immigration stream. The numbers have fluctuated over the years. Many individuals have been permanent residents in Canada for years but have never taken the next step to get their citizenship, for all sorts of reasons.

For those who do make the decision to pursue their citizenship, which is the majority, there is a 1,095-day qualification in order to get that citizenship. I acknowledge that there is a certain time frame around that number, but these are individuals who have never set foot in Canada in the form of having a successful permanent resident application, which is a very important qualifier. A person can be in Canada as a visitor almost indefinitely. Typically it is a six-month return; people go back to their home country, and then they might come back for another visit. We encourage people to come visit our great lands from coast to coast to coast. This is a positive thing, but it does not count toward a person's citizenship. In order to acquire naturalization, people have to go through a process that sees them being in Canada, after being a permanent resident, for a minimum of 1,095 days.

The third way a person can be a citizen of Canada, and this is where the contention seems to be, is through descent. I will give a very specific example. There are literally thousands of Canadians who serve abroad in order to serve Canadians here in Canada. I am referring to our military personnel and foreign service, and these are just some national government-related positions. There are many international companies rooted here in Canada, headquartered in Canada, with individuals working outside the country in one way or another.

I will try to simplify this. I want members to imagine I am a civil servant working in the embassy, in the foreign service, and I am now posted to country X. While I am in country X, I have a child. That child is not born in Canada but is born in, let us say, Germany. Being part of the foreign service as a diplomat, I might be there for a number of years. I could possibly come back to Canada, or I could stay on a foreign deployment for a number of years, as many bureaucrats will.

Let us say my son or daughter is the age of majority and has an opportunity in the country I was posted to, decides to stay there and, ultimately, has children of his or her own. I end up coming back to Canada, whether I have retired or my posting brings me back to Canada. What the Conservatives are saying, along with the Bloc, is that if my son or daughter has a child, that child cannot be a Canadian. I am suggesting that my grandchild should be entitled to be a Canadian.

In terms of facilitating some sort of a connection, we do have, within the legislation, that there should be evidence of a substantial connection. That substantial connection is 1,095 days. I referred to 1,095 days a few minutes ago. If my son was to maintain that relationship with Canada and have that substantial connection, then why should my grandchild not be able to have the opportunity to call Canada home? This is where we differ. I do not quite understand the opposition to that.

They will take the extreme position, which, I would suggest, is a bit of an exaggeration. Is it possible? All sorts of things are possible, but is it justifiable in order to prevent a second generation from being able to come to Canada as Canadian citizens? Some may argue and ask, why could they not just reapply to become a Canadian? As we all know, it is not as simple as that.

Canada is recognized around the world as one of the countries, I would say the country, to come to, with the strongest reputation today and over past years. There are far more people who want to come to Canada and call Canada home than we can sustain. When we look at immigration and the issue we are talking about today, I think it is reasonable for us to support this because we can still have integrity within our immigration system. We have the flexibility.

The Prime Minister has been very clear on the immigration file and the need to bring stability to it. With Bill C-3, we are empowering Canadians abroad to become Canadians. I see that as a positive thing.