An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

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.

Similar bills

C-71 (44th Parliament, 1st session) An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024)
S-245 (44th Parliament, 1st session) An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)
S-230 (43rd Parliament, 2nd session) An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)

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

Nov. 5, 2025 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)
Nov. 3, 2025 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)
Nov. 3, 2025 Passed Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) (report stage amendment)
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 inconsistencies regarding citizenship by descent for Canadians born abroad, requiring a substantial connection to Canada.

Liberal

  • Responds to court ruling on citizenship: The bill directly addresses the Ontario Superior Court's December 2023 ruling, which found Canada's citizenship law inconsistent and two-tiered, and aims to rectify this by the November 20 deadline.
  • Extends citizenship by descent: Bill C-3 extends automatic citizenship to children born abroad to Canadian parents, including "lost Canadians" and their descendants, ensuring fairness and upholding charter mobility and equality rights.
  • Requires substantial connection to Canada: It requires Canadian parents born abroad to demonstrate a cumulative 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before their child's birth or adoption to pass on citizenship by descent.
  • Upholds value of citizenship: The bill protects the value of Canadian citizenship by requiring a meaningful connection to the country for those passing on citizenship, without creating new immigration routes or perpetual citizenship abroad.

Conservative

  • Devalues Canadian citizenship: The Conservative party asserts that Bill C-3 devalues Canadian citizenship, turning it into a mere formality and creating "citizens of convenience" with weak or no real connection to the country.
  • Rejects common-sense amendments: The party criticizes the government for gutting common-sense amendments, supported by Conservatives and Bloc, which would have required language proficiency, cumulative residency, and security checks for new citizens.
  • Erodes Canadian national identity: Conservatives view the bill as part of a Liberal postnational agenda that erodes Canada's national identity, leading to a broken immigration system and societal challenges like housing and healthcare strain.
  • Fails to appeal court ruling: The party notes the bill's origin in the government's choice not to appeal a lower court ruling, which allowed unfettered citizenship by descent and expanded the scope of citizenship.

Bloc

  • Criticizes undermining of committee work: The Bloc criticizes the government for using parliamentary tools to undo the amendments adopted by the committee, undermining democratic institutions and the collaborative work of MPs.
  • Advocates for stricter criteria: The party proposes amendments requiring language proficiency, a citizenship knowledge test, a security assessment, and 1,095 days of residence within a five-year period.
  • Concerned about bill's scope: The Bloc expresses concern over the bill's potential impact on 150,000 to 300,000 individuals, a number significantly higher than the government's initial estimate.
  • Opposes bill in current form: The Bloc Québécois will not support the bill in its current form, as the government rejected their proposed amendments and disregarded the committee's work.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that some of us worked collaboratively in committee to propose obvious amendments to Bill C-3.

I know that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois worked on these amendments so that the bill would include a language requirement, so that people would have to be able express themselves in French, particularly in Quebec, or in both languages. It is important that people pass a citizenship knowledge test and undergo security screening.

Why were those three amendments so important? How does my colleague explain the fact that the Liberals and the NDP rejected those three obvious amendments?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The Bloc members at our committee were very co-operative and helpful with creating good amendments, particularly around the issues of language and knowledge of Canada. This was the work of the committee. This work was delegated to the committee by the House. The Bloc members had very good responses and reasons for why we want to protect language.

Of course, we want to make sure those in our country understand one of our two official languages, be it English or French. This is critical to making sure that we are able to put a value on citizenship, that we are able to define what it means to be Canadian and what Canadian values are. Language is probably core to that issue.

It is very sad to see the Liberal government just throw language away, not make it part of the bill and not consider it important.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who serves on the committee and who amplified the question asked by my colleague from the Bloc.

There were common-sense amendments proposed by the Conservatives, in conjunction with the Bloc Québécois, that upheld the value of Canadian citizenship, that looked at language and the ability to speak one of the two founding languages of the country, and many other things. However, those were blocked by the Liberal government.

Why does the member think that is? Why is there this reticence to uphold the value of Canadian citizenship when we should be doing that with a piece of legislation like this?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague's question points to a broader problem on the other side of the aisle in the government, and that is a lack of creativity and a lack of ability to create good legislation.

We can see that in the current legislation. This is a carbon copy of Bill C-71, which was a carbon copy of the highly modified Senate bill that came to the House prior to that. There is not one bit of difference between Bill C-71 from the last Parliament and Bill C-3 in this Parliament. There was no thought put into it. The new minister just took it and ran with it. There was no consideration given to some of the limitations raised in the previous discussions and debate. It is clear that the government does not know what it is doing when it comes to immigration.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise on behalf of the citizens and residents of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I say that because citizens and residents are two different things. All of them are important to me as a member of Parliament, but they are different. As a country, we have always made a distinction between those who are citizens and those who are not. The reason for this is that citizenship has intrinsic value. Citizenship is not a right for everyone. For some, it is a privilege.

We are here because we are discussing Bill C-3, which is the Liberal government's attempt at devaluing Canadian citizenship by making it easier for people to access when they do not have, contrary to the way the legislation is framed, a genuinely substantial connection to Canada and to Canadian identity.

We have to understand the idea from which this bill came. It is not just a response to an Ontario court ruling, because the government could have, as any government can, appealed that court ruling. For example, the Federal Court found that the Liberal government had violated the charter rights of Canadians in invoking the Emergencies Act, and the federal government is fighting that ruling tooth and nail in court. For this particular court ruling, the government did not mount an appeal. It did not combat it. It has accepted, at face value, some of the court's arguments. It expanded that now, in Bill C-3, beyond what the court even sought, as a way to make Canadian citizenship easier for people to access and to make citizenship by descent easier, even for people who do not have a truly substantial connection to Canada.

The idea for this came from the Liberals. About Canada, former prime minister Justin Trudeau said, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”. This is what he said: “no core identity”. There is no meaning to being Canadian. There is no meaning to Canada. He said, “Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.” A postnational state is a country without a national identity, without a core heritage and without a shared belief about what this country is.

We heard the Minister of Canadian Identity unable to even describe what Canadian identity is. We heard the current Prime Minister unable to describe what Canadian identity is, except to make it relative to American identity. He said, “We are Canadian because we are not American.” No, we are Canadian because we have a shared set of values that are tremendously important, which we should, as a country, be so proud of.

In my maiden speech in this chamber, I spoke about Canadians of convenience, people with a new-found patriotism who had new Canadian flags flying from their houses that still had the creases in them. They had never before in their lives identified Canadianism with something specific. It is not just about hockey, maple syrup and beavers. Canadian identity is about liberty. It is about individuality. It is about pluralism. It is about tolerance for different ideas, freedom of speech and democratic freedom. These are Canadian ideas. These are Canadian values. When we try to strip this away from what it means to be Canadian, we are left with the question of what it means to be a Canadian citizen and a Liberal government trying to make only tenuous connections between Canada and Canadian citizenship for people around the world.

When we talk about citizenship by descent, we are not talking about the children of Canadian citizens who may be born abroad. We are talking about the children of children of Canadian citizens born abroad, who may have never resided in Canada, worked in Canada, desired to vote in a Canadian election or desired to run for office in Canada. They are people who have no connection here but who may have spent, at any point in their lives, a little bit of time here. Three years sounds like a lot unless we consider that it could be spread over the course of decades. Under Bill C-3, the Liberals would view that as a substantial connection to Canada.

Canadian citizenship is not something that should be freely given out to people who are not born here. It should be earned and, more importantly, given to people who genuinely want to build up this country and contribute to this country. Some of the proudest Canadians I have ever met are people who adopted Canadian citizenship after being born abroad. They came to Canada because they loved something here: our values, our freedoms or our opportunity. They learned our language or languages, chose to become Canadian and have contributed. We have members of this chamber who are proud, patriotic Canadians who were not born in Canada.

I am not arguing that citizenship should never be available to people. I am saying that we need to make sure that those who become Canadian citizens truly want to contribute to Canada and be Canadian. We do not want what we have seen in the past, which is Canadians of convenience. When a crisis unfolds somewhere in the world, all of a sudden, someone with no desire to live or contribute in Canada pulls out a Canadian passport and demands that the federal government help them. These are people who do not want to be Canadians but who want, when convenient for them, the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

We see the alternative of this happening: Birth tourism has been allowed to thrive in Canada. There are companies that, for a certain amount of money, will facilitate someone's coming to Canada to give birth to a child here who will then become a Canadian citizen automatically, by birthright, despite having parents who are not at all Canadian citizens or permanent residents. They do not even have work permits. They may be here on visitor visas, as international students or as temporary foreign workers. They are people whose relationship with Canada is temporary.

When we put forward an amendment at committee to ensure that birth tourism would not be permitted as a path to Canadian citizenship, it was rejected by the Liberal government. By the way, many of its members, including the Minister of Immigration, said before the House, at second reading, that they would entertain amendments at committee. The committee worked hard across party lines at amending Bill C-3, and to take a bad bill and try to mitigate some of the harms and devaluation of citizenship. The committee, as I said, worked across partisan lines and sent an amended bill back to the House. The Liberal government, with the NDP, rejected those amendments outright.

Despite claiming that they are willing to work with all parties, the Liberals now expect the House to rubber-stamp the original bill they were planning to ram through regardless. This is something that is tremendously concerning. If Canadian citizenship is to mean anything at all, we need to be able to ground it in a discussion about Canadian identity and a connection to Canada, ensuring we have a core identity and set of values that we all know, intuitively, are part of who we are as a people.

I am so proud to be Canadian. As I said, I have spoken to so many people who have spent generations in this country with their families, to people who came here for the first time as a child, or even as an adult, and became Canadian, and to every iteration in between. They are all frustrated by the devaluing of Canadian citizenship we have seen by the Liberal government.

Justin Trudeau said that Canada is “the first postnational state”. That is the core idea anchoring the way the Liberal government is viewing citizenship and what it means to be Canadian. This is not a new idea. There is a class of globalist elites, and the Prime Minister has proudly identified with people who collects passports. The Prime Minister had three citizenships before he ran for the leadership of the Liberals, and potentially has them now. I do not know for sure what the status of that is. What sort of commitment does a person have to any country when they collect passports like trading cards? This is what the Liberal government is facilitating. For people whose primary affiliation or allegiance is to a different country, the Liberals want to make it easier for them to have Canadian citizenship. How does this build up Canada and foster pride and citizenship in this country?

I will be voting against Bill C-3, and I encourage all members of the House to do the same. It is the only way to protect the value of Canadian citizenship.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, it is very sad to hear the comments by the member opposite. In the last Parliament, I spent many hours on the committee that was working on this bill. I met families that served Canada and that are impacted through this policy, which was implemented by Harper. In fact, I think this was the policy that made him lose his election.

What does the member have to say to Canadian families that served their country, are impacted, are part of the lost Canadians, a system Harper created, and that are very sad to hear his very shameful comments in the House?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON

Madam Speaker, this is a gross misrepresentation of what the Conservatives have been trying to do on this bill. There are already tools available to the government to deal with lost Canadians. The minister has tremendous latitude on this.

What we are talking about is not a government that has not been in power for 10 years. We are talking about the value of Canadian citizenship and people who, despite no real meaningful connection to Canada, will be permitted to access Canadian citizenship if this bill passes.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, we know that there is a deadline for passing this bill, and if it is not met, the ruling of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will take effect.

Has my colleague looked into what will happen if the bill is not passed and the court ruling takes effect?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON

Madam Speaker, I do not think we should allow external pressures to force something through that is imperfect.

I want to thank my colleague for her question. I respect Quebeckers a lot for having these conversations about identity and nationality. Quebeckers understand their heritage and they have a clear definition of who they are.

What bothers me about the Liberal government's approach is that the Liberals do not believe that there is such a thing as a Canadian identity. The Liberals think that Canada is a postnational country. That is dangerous. It devalues Canadian citizenship.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Coteau Liberal Scarborough—Woburn, ON

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about Canadian values and what our Canadian identity is. I am a big supporter of diversity in this country. I am a big supporter of equality and, of course, building an inclusive society.

Does the member agree that those three elements are part of the Canadian identity, and are they things he personally supports?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON

Madam Speaker, I love how much of a range there is of people, backgrounds and beliefs in this country. It is interesting that, when members of the Liberal government talk about the value of diversity, they never promote diversity of thought and diversity of opinion. That is a form of diversity they do not particularly go for.

I hope the Liberal government will truly back off on its attempt to censor and restrict what Canadians say online.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, can the member give us an indication of whether or not he believes there is birthright for individuals who should be getting their citizenship in certain situations, such as a substantial connection? Does he believe that would justify issuing it for a second generation?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON

Madam Speaker, the question at hand is, what constitutes a substantial connection? Again, the Conservatives worked across party lines at committee to beef up this definition because we do not believe the one in Bill C-3 adequately ensures there is a substantial connection to Canada.

I most certainly believe Canadian citizens should be invested in our country. That is absolutely not disputed, certainly not by our side.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a Conservative friend across the way. I will let you guess which one.

Let me start by saying there is a need to have some clarity on the issue we are debating so that the individuals who are following the debate are perfectly clear about it. To explain the Conservative position versus the government position, I will give a hypothetical situation, using my family as an example. This is not true; I am using it as a hypothetical example.

Let us say I was born in Canada and now I live in Germany. It might be for economic reasons, I might be a member of the Canadian Forces or I might be a foreign diplomat. For whatever reason, I am living in Germany and I now have a child who was born in Germany. For the sake of argument, let us say that child's name is Cindy or Raymond. I do not want to show preference over my children, but I will call this child Raymond. I then come back to Canada. My son, who has been living in Germany, is a Canadian citizen. Nothing changes. He is a Canadian citizen.

If he decides to have a child, that child can only be deemed a Canadian citizen if my son has a substantial connection to Canada before his child is born. This means that my son, who was born in Germany, would have to have spent a minimum of 1,095 days in Canada. Coincidentally, for an immigrant who comes to Canada to qualify to be a citizen, they must have been a resident for 1,095 days, albeit over five years. That is where the 1,095 days comes from.

As long as Raymond spends a minimum of 1,095 days in Canada before he has a child, because he was not born in Canada, he would be able to show a substantial connection to Canada so that his child can be deemed a Canadian. For that three-year period, if he came to my cottage every summer or studied at a university, whatever it might be, his child would be deemed a Canadian citizen. His child, by the way, would be my grandchild.

Here is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives will come up with all sorts of reasons why my potential grandchild should not be a Canadian citizen, even though my son had established a substantial connection to Canada. That is what they are saying. I do not think they fully understand this.

I want members to think of the thousands of Canadians who serve in our armed forces and the thousands of Canadians who have served in foreign affairs over the years, and those are just the public servants. This is not to mention private sector workers and so forth.

What we are trying to do is respond to an superior court decision that said we needed to go beyond the first generation. That is a direct response to previous Conservative legislation. I have heard Conservatives stand in their places today and indirectly, if not directly, make reference to the notwithstanding clause.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

That is not true.