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

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite, but I am concerned.

The member's initial statement was that he supports the bill as drafted. Can I assume then that the government is going to vote against all the amendments that have been put forward by the Conservative opposition with the support of the Bloc?

Second, the member said that his parents were so proud of their citizenship when they came to Canada. My question is this: Would his parents believe in citizenship in perpetuity for people who actually had never set foot in Canada?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as is the custom for members on this side, we consider every single amendment, we consider the impact of those amendments on the lives of Canadians and we make our voting decisions accordingly.

With respect to some of the amendments that were put forward, we heard the term “chain migration” being used. This is very dangerous language use in this place, because it fundamentally misrepresents. My colleague gave the example of a foreign service diplomat who could get tied up in the maelstrom of what the opposition is proposing.

What we are proposing is a reasoned, thoughtful and clear path to citizenship for people who meet the requirements.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way stated that this side of the House supported a moratorium on immigration, which is patently misleading. What we have stated is that the non-partisan consensus on immigration has been broken by the government.

For 30-plus years, between 300,000 and 500,000 people came to Canada and valued this country, and that number bounced around because of economic circumstances and the situations around the world. That consensus was broken when the numbers skyrocketed past one million per year for three years. That was not fair to the immigrants coming in, and it is not fair to Canadians who then faced housing, medical and other shortages in this country. Would the member opposite not agree?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member. I want to say two things. First, I think we all agree that there is an important moment in this country's history to be able to reform the immigration system so that it works in a thoughtful, meaningful way, which is exactly what our government has said we are doing, and that is exactly what we are doing.

The member opposite said that I made a blanket statement about a moratorium on all numbers, but that is not what I said. There are members opposite who have said that, including the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, who said that it was his personal view that there should be a moratorium on immigration. My understanding is that this runs counter to the very policies of the other side, so I would appreciate it if the member opposite would be able to clarify that position, but as far as I am concerned, those are the words of his colleague.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members across the way keep saying that it is because of an anti-immigration attitude that people are critical or would have preferred that the amendments tabled in committee be adopted by the House. I find it really interesting that they are telling us this.

I am not an immigrant. If I go abroad and my children are born abroad, their children will not have Canadian citizenship if they do not spend at least three years here. Why are we victimizing immigrants? It is not immigration that is being targeted here, it is the issue of not granting citizenship to people who do not have sufficient ties to Canada and ensuring that the people who are granted citizenship are people who have demonstrated that attachment.

The issue that divides us is determining the level of attachment required, not whether or not to grant citizenship.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only reason we started talking about immigration and not just citizenship is that the members of the Conservative Party started talking about immigration and the problems related to the system.

It is hard for us to have a meaningful discussion about the concept of citizenship without acknowledging the problems with the immigration system in relation to obtaining citizenship. Even for Canadians, there need to be clear rules that everyone can understand about how to become a Canadian citizen.

That is why it is important for us to weigh this bill responsibly.