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 / 12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, it is true. He should read what the immigration critic said. The default radical right position of the Conservatives is ridiculous. They are saying we should just use the notwithstanding clause. If they do not like what a court says, we should use the notwithstanding clause.

The point is that the Conservatives are trying to say that a grandchild would not be deemed a Canadian citizen and would have to go through some form of process that could take many years in order to become a permanent resident, if they are fortunate enough, and then wait additional time. They need to open their minds on this issue and realize that there is justification for the superior court's decision. It was not a political decision; the Ontario Superior Court made the decision. We did not appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada because we agree with the superior court, and understandably so. We now have until November 20 to get royal assent on this legislation or there will be no rule. Imagine the chaos or confusion that could be caused as a direct result.

During debate, the critic for immigration talked about Canadian identity and how we are somehow assaulting it. Seriously. Our country is not broken, contrary to what many speakers from the Conservative Party say. Our country is the greatest country in the world to call home. This is something we have built on and continue to build on. This is why the Prime Minister is in Asia and has been over in Europe. We are looking at ways we can enhance opportunities for Canadians and build a stronger, healthier economy. By doing that, we are building our heritage, who we are and our sense of identity, contrary to what the critic for immigration said.

We have symbols, such as the maple leaf or, better yet, the Canadian flag or the RCMP. The leader of the Conservative Party made the despicable comment that the leadership of the RCMP was “despicable” and then the other Conservative members piled on. Contrary to the impression Conservative members try to give at times, the RCMP is a very important symbol for Canada.

If someone does not understand our Canadian identity, they need to spend more time in their constituencies. They should be proud of the fact that we are a multicultural society with great diversity. It is that diversity that gives us opportunities like the Prime Minister meeting with President Marcos and talking about getting a trade agreement with the Philippines. There are over a million people of Filipino heritage in Canada today. We were able to achieve a trade agreement with Ukraine, at least in part because of our Ukrainian heritage. We should recognize the true value of being a Canadian.

We do not have to deny individuals, such as the grandchildren of Canadians, the opportunity to call themselves a Canadian. These are the types of responses we are getting from the Conservatives. Get real.

They talk about the amendments being proposed. Why would we support amendments if we disagree with them? There are more Liberal MPs than there are Bloc MPs and Conservative MPs combined, so it is not undemocratic to undo something the committee did if the majority of the members of the House of Commons disagree with it.

With all due respect to the Bloc members, there are issues. Yes, I have as much a passion for French as anyone else inside this chamber. Because of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Liberal policies, I believe there are more people speaking French in Canada today than there have ever been. It is called bilingualism. Let us be proud of that.

Are they going to tell an indigenous child up north who has never had the opportunity to learn English or French that they are not a citizen because they cannot speak English or French? Are they going to tell someone adopting a 17-and-a-half-year-old that because they cannot speak English or French, they are not going to be a citizen of Canada? Their arguments are flawed and they need to recognize that this is the reason we voted down the amendments.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my Liberal colleague's lyrical flight of fancy, but there is still one niggling question. What about integration? Migrants need to integrate into the host society.

Even in his speech, he sort of proved our Conservative colleague right when he said that Canadian society is not actually founded on any strong symbols of identity.

Language is the strongest symbol of identity. If someone does not speak the language when they arrive in a country, how can they communicate? How can they be part of a collective identity? It is downright impossible.

My colleague spoke about the RCMP but, even though I have the utmost respect for the RCMP, it does not help develop a collective identity.

I would like my colleague to explain why the Liberal Party is upset about the fact that our amendment on the issue of language testing to ensure minimum language proficiency was rejected. It is completely inconsistent.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, members will find settlement programs. There are agreements between provinces and non-profits for all forms of support for immigrants, because not everyone around the world can speak English or French. Let us take a look at the individuals who came from Ukraine to settle, for example. Members will find that there were private sector and government-supported English and French classes to encourage individuals to become better integrated into society. I do not necessarily have the same fears that my colleague across the way has, because the government does provide support mechanisms.

I think Canadians, as a whole, value diversity and understand and appreciate how being a multicultural society has helped us make our country the number one country in the world to call home.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a lot of points of misinformation that the party opposite has been spewing on this really important bill. We made a promise to lost Canadians that we were going to restore this specific requirement to access their citizenship for their children and grandchildren. Many of us did that work. The member put those points of misinformation to the forefront and explained what the party opposite was lying to Canadians about.

Can the member expand on why we cannot use this as a divisive point to lie to Canadians and mislead them into thinking that we are doing something we are not?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the member insinuated in her question that the Conservative Party was lying to Canadians. We know that is not true, and it is unparliamentary to insinuate it.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, I agree that my emotions may have got the best of me. I apologize to the member opposite. I agree that we should not use those words in the House. However, I have to say it is very misleading and very un-Canadian of the Conservatives. I will switch out those words to “misleading Canadians”.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, there are many individuals who have contributed to what has been a very lengthy debate over many years. I think of individuals like Don Chapman and others who have been there to support members on all sides of the House in recognizing the need to give citizenship to those entitled to it by birth. The lost Canadians have been at the forefront, pushing the government and, ultimately, the courts to address this issue.

I am hopeful that Bill C-3 will finally put to rest many of the different concerns that are out there. It would have been a powerful statement for all Canadians to see every member's support for the principles of Bill C-3.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:40 p.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, what I found interesting about my Liberal colleague's comments is that he said that one of the criteria the Liberals included in Bill C-3 to establish a substantial connection to Canada was the 1,095 days. We are talking about the same 1,095 days that are required for naturalized citizens.

Another criterion that naturalized citizens must meet is that they must know how to speak French or English. Why does the member opposite think it is okay to use the same 1,095-day criterion that we have for naturalized citizens, yet not require these people who are being granted citizenship to have a knowledge of French or English?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, the member does not recognize the difference between a birthright and someone who is naturalized. In the bill, the member will find the answer.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:40 p.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-3 is once again before us.

The Liberals have dismantled our immigration system and turned it into a circus. They have thrown open our borders, inviting in millions of people over the last decade without the necessary housing, health care or jobs to support them. Let us look at the results.

Housing prices have shot up to unattainable levels. We were already in a housing deficit before increasing our population. Adding millions of new people to a housing market that was already undersupplied created an environment that resulted in skyrocketing rents and out-of-reach home prices.

Just last week in my riding, a mother told me that her daughter wanted to start a family but could not because they could not afford to buy a home. A father told me that his son is working full-time but cannot afford a place to rent and is stuck in the basement. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and I am sure on the other side of the aisle as well, are hearing the same stories across our entire country.

At the health committee, witnesses noted that if immigration levels continue to be mismatched with provincial health care delivery, outcomes for all Canadians will suffer. Canadians are already suffering. The Liberals' not considering health care capacity in their immigration policies has meant longer wait times for both immigrants and Canadians. People are waiting upwards of eight hours in hospital emergency rooms, and when they are admitted, they are in the hallway for hours and hours, if not days. People are waiting months to see a specialist for basic diagnostic services. Longer wait times mean that everyone's health suffers.

Right now there is also a huge job crisis. In the greater Toronto area alone, youth unemployment is hovering dangerously close to the 20% mark. The importance of a first job in high school or when coming out of higher education cannot be overstated for our youth wanting to start their adult life. A first job for youth builds critical skills and kick-starts a career. Without the ability to get a job, especially a first job coming out of higher education, long-term earnings are impacted, careers are stalled and a sense of hopelessness kicks in.

That is the situation our youth find themselves in after 10 years of disastrous Liberal immigration policies, when a mind-boggling number of temporary foreign workers and international students were let into the country. When the Prime Minister says we need to make sacrifices, what he really means is that both new immigrants and Canadians must suffer because of 10 years of Liberal failed policies.

With all that in mind, forgive me if I am a bit skeptical about the Liberal migration bill before us, as it promises to potentially add thousands of new Canadians into an already overburdened system and would do nothing to address the challenges we already have.

As I have previously mentioned in speeches with respect to the bill, Liberals will say that they have to pass the legislation because of a lower-court ruling that said that the first-generation limit of citizenship by descent could go on indefinitely. What the Liberals fail to mention is not only that they did not appeal the court ruling but also that they have control over how it is implemented, through the legislation they put forward, as a minority government.

The legislation before us today does not include the common-sense amendments passed at committee, as we have heard all morning. Those amendments would have turned a lousy Liberal bill into a slightly less lousy Liberal bill. Yesterday felt a bit like déjà vu: Liberals once again were joined by their coalition partner, the NDP, to vote down our common-sense amendments.

I am going to summarize what happened. The committee studied the bill. Conservatives worked together with our Bloc colleagues to pass reasonable amendments, such as new Canadians' being required to know one of our two official languages and to have a criminal background check to protect the safety of Canadians. There were a lot of other important points.

The Liberals then came to the House and voted down all the amendments. What were the amendments? Liberals voted against new Canadians' having a criminal background check. Residents in my riding do not want people with criminal records immigrating to Canada and walking our streets.

Liberals voted against new Canadians' knowing a little bit of either the English or the French language. It is hard to integrate into a new country already knowing the language, let alone not knowing the language, which is certainly setting immigrants up to fail. Even the minister said that our official languages were part of Canadian values. If they are Canadian values, as the minister suggested, why did the Liberals vote against putting them in the bill? Why did the minister, who believes that, not put the requirement in the bill in the first place?

Liberals also voted against harmonizing the residency requirements that someone needs to fulfill in order to obtain citizenship through naturalisation with those for citizenship by descent. Providing proof of three years of residency over the entirety of someone's life would cause huge administrative problems. The proposed amendment would have changed this to three years within a five-year period, consistent with how our immigration system works now. How is an immigration officer supposed to verify three years of physical presence over the course of someone's life, using records that are decades-old or that, in many cases, may not even exist?

I have something to get off my chest. At the immigration committee last week, the immigration minister, the seventh Liberal one in the last 10 years, was questioned on a different bill. When I started mentioning to her the potential improvements, she said that suggestions and helpful comments are very much appreciated, and she went on to say that the committee is there to give recommendations.

How the process on Bill C-3 has played out is emblematic of the last 10 years of the Liberal government. The Liberal government does not care about recommendations. It does not care about what other parliamentarians have to say. It has no respect for amendments or recommendations coming out of the standing committees of Parliament.

Our immigration system is an unmitigated disaster right now. Multiple parties took part in the legislative process, proposing amendments to make a lousy piece of Liberal legislation better. What do the Liberals do? They vote down amendments, not only on the bill before us but on pretty much every bill that comes into the House.

I have news for the members opposite: Canadians elected them, just as much as they did us, to come to Ottawa. In fact, 174 members of the 343-member House are not Liberal. That may be a surprise to the members opposite, who are behaving as if they had a huge majority in the government. Do the members opposite realize that their voting down these amendments tells me and all Canadians that Liberals do not care if Canadians can speak English or French?

It tells me and all Canadians that Liberals do not care if they can execute their immigration policies. It also tells me and all Canadians that Liberals do not care if new Canadians with criminal background records are being released into our communities.

I will end with this: I am not surprised that the Liberal government is putting forward more legislation that would add to the chaos in our immigration system. We know that the immigration system is a train wreck, because each of our constituency offices is inundated with immigration files, every office except, of course, the Prime Minister's. It has been half a year since the out-of-touch Prime Minister was elected; he still does not have a constituency office to serve his riding, so he would not know what we are dealing with every day in our constituency offices.

If the Prime Minister cannot figure out how to serve his own constituents, how can we expect him to serve the country? The Prime Minister's priorities are everywhere else but here.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, I imagine that the member opposite was here in the last Parliament. His party voted for the bill to pass. This is part of the misleading misinformation. They are trying to fearmonger, trying to get Canadians to think that we are doing something we are not doing.

The Conservatives voted against our tough-on-crime bill. They have no plans to support our budget, which Canadians sent us to the House to vote on. When it comes to dividing Canadians, they rise up.

Why did the member vote for the bill in the last Parliament, which passed? Why did the Conservatives mislead Canadians to believe that they were going to do this? In the new Parliament, they now want to shift it. They want to use it as a political score point so they can send budget fundraising emails, to raise money.

Why are the Conservatives doing that to Canadians? Why are they misleading Canadians?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:50 p.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, I will attempt to address the ridiculous question from the member opposite. She and other members of the Liberal Party have stood up on the bill and on other bills and said to us, before the amendments were presented in the House, to take it to committee and to come back with recommendations and amendments. Of course, we did that. We came back, but the Liberals voted down the amendments.

I have something to say to the Liberals: As hard as they try, and as eloquent as they are in their speeches in the House, there is one thing they have not mastered yet. They have not mastered how to suck and blow at the same time.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, a Conservative colleague stood on a point of order. I agreed with that point and I think the member also agreed with it. Even though he was not in the previous Parliament, he is an experienced member. I think he should retract those comments and apologize.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Yes, that was an out-of-place remark.

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

November 4th, 2025 / 12:50 p.m.

Conservative

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

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for you and this House.

The Liberals cannot say one thing one day and say something different the next day. They cannot inhale and exhale at the same time. I hope those words are more appropriate.