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

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

moved that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House once again to speak to Bill C-3. It is a very important bill that seeks to respond to an important court challenge calling into question citizenship law in Canada. It would do so by pointing to an inconsistency in citizenship law that has to be rectified in order for it to be what it should always be: equal and applicable to all.

In my previous speech on Bill C-3, I began by talking about the philosopher Hannah Arendt, who famously said that citizenship is “the right to have rights”. Without citizenship, we cannot even speak about democracy.

The bill would codify into law what we all know, which is that all of us, as individuals, have certain inalienable rights. If democracy is to mean anything and stand for anything at all, citizenship matters. In our case, as Canadians, citizenship and the rights it entails, such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and all of the freedoms we hold dear, are codified in our charter. A perfect example of that is when citizenship entails living up to the expression of rights, which, without that document, cannot be held in high regard at all.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in December 2023 that citizenship law in Canada is not consistent. In fact, it is two-tiered. It came to that decision because Canadians who obtain their citizenship either through birth or through naturalization can pass down that citizenship to their children, but this is not true of Canadians who are born abroad. Bill C-3 seeks to rectify that. How would it do so? It would all Canadians who were born abroad and have children born abroad to pass down their citizenship. That would address the Ontario court decision of December 2023, which said the fact that this right does not currently exist and is not currently available stands as an inconsistency. It goes against the equality provisions under the charter.

There is a very important condition, though, that the government has added, which is that there must be a substantial connection to Canada that is upheld over a cumulative period of three years. That is required. This is a very important condition that allows for citizenship to be meaningful, and it is something that advocates have called for for a long time.

I know colleagues across the aisle will point to other ways of achieving this goal. At committee, the Conservatives worked with the Bloc on a number of amendments, which were passed at committee but defeated here, as we saw yesterday. Colleagues in the House have raised concerns about that, but I would remind them that, ultimately, it is the House of Commons that decides. The House of Commons has various committees, and amendments can be passed there, but we have report stage for a reason. I thank the NDP for working with us to restore the bill, in essence, to its original form. The bill is justified and needed, and it speaks to the needs of the moment.

We have to respond to this court ruling. November 20 is the date by which we have been asked to respond. I would urge colleagues to think about being as expeditious as possible in getting the bill out of the House of Commons and over to the Senate so that senators can look at it and it can ultimately receive royal assent. This is of paramount importance. Think about what is at stake.

Canadian identity and citizenship can mean many things, but I go back to the example of a Canadian born abroad who also has children born abroad. They would certainly feel very close to Canada and feel a real tie to Canada. They could have served Canada as a diplomat or a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, or by participating in non-government organizations. A substantial connection builds through experiences like these. We could think of many other examples as well.

That substantial connection needs to be understood, and it is understood and respected in this bill. It would be cumulative, not consecutive. What does that mean? Think of a diplomat who was born in another country, like Germany or France. They would have the opportunity, as a diplomat, to spend time in Canada, but perhaps be stationed or assigned to different postings abroad. A consecutive stay in Canada is therefore not always possible, but a cumulative requirement in the bill would allow for that diplomat to still maintain that connection to Canada. It would allow that diplomat, under the provisions of the bill, to meet the requirement so that citizenship could be passed down.

Colleagues have raised this concern about the consecutive requirement that they hoped would be in the bill. However, a cumulative requirement is what the government has gone with, for reasons I have talked about today and in my previous speech, and it is entirely justified.

Again, November 20 is the court deadline. We have an opportunity now to move forward with this bill. I hope colleagues get behind it. I am still struggling to understand exactly what the issue is, although I am sure that my colleagues will raise that in the comments and questions. We have an opportunity to abide by the deadline. Yes, amendments were made, but the House of Commons' procedures allow for those amendments to be overturned, and they were.

I am thankful for the time, and I look forward to questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that it was the Liberal government that prorogued Parliament for its leadership race, called an election earlier this year and then allowed Parliament to sit for only a few short weeks this year. It is now asking Parliament to expedite a bill that would allow unfettered chain migration in a very short period of time. I digress.

My colleague talked about the rights of Canadian citizenship. Could he please explain how this bill would deal with the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship? Why has his government gutted things like language requirements and security checks for adults?

What are the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship, and how would this bill allow them to be upheld?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a prorogation during the time of the previous government. That is a practice available to parliaments in Canada and elsewhere. This is the Westminster tradition.

We should focus on the present, and especially the future. The court is asking us to do exactly that. If members across the way want to continue to dwell on the Trudeau years, they can do that. It seems they have an obsession with Justin Trudeau. They keep talking about him.

There is a new Prime Minister. There is a new government, which is, among other things, trying to put forward legislation that is entirely consistent with the Charter of Rights. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has said there is an inconsistency, and we needed to rectify it in a way that would allow us to uphold vital democratic principles.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. parliamentary secretary highlighting the importance of the decision by the Ontario Superior Court. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on what would happen if this legislation were not to pass. There is an expectation for November 20.

There is a difference between naturalization from a permanent resident into a Canadian citizen, which has a 1,095-day requirement, and someone who has a birthright to citizenship. That was established when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, as was not having to take English or French exams and so forth.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague, as he so often does, points to a number of critical things.

First of all, on his question about what would happen if this bill does not pass, we would have a citizenship law that is not consistent with the requirements of the Charter of Rights, especially the equality provisions. If citizenship laws are to mean anything in Canada, as I mentioned here today and on previous occasions, we have to ensure they abide by the charter and its equality requirements.

My colleague also points to the differences between citizenship by birth and naturalization. There are a number of nuances and differences. We have a bill that seeks to put in place a requirement that helps bring to life the citizenship requirements in terms of birth.

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

Mr. Speaker, to sum up, what my colleague is telling us is that we should adopt anything and everything on the pretext that the deadline set by the superior court is looming. I beg to differ with his view of things, especially since work was done in committee and proposals were put forward. The committee did some serious work. One aspect had to do with citizenship applicants' knowledge of French or English.

Why is that a problem for my colleague?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our country is a bilingual country. We are very proud of that.

My colleague talked about the work done in committee. A few amendments were adopted in committee, but the House of Commons is sovereign. I mentioned that in my speech.

Parliament and, in this case, the House decide. We saw that yesterday. That is a sacrosanct principle.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I would like to point out with respect to the parliamentary secretary's speech.

First off, the approach of the government creates an ethical dilemma when citizenship is passed on to the grandchildren of naturalized citizens. There will come a time when Canada has to use its conscription laws.

How will a Canadian living in another country be treated versus a Canadian living in Canada properly? We have not heard an answer from the government about how our military and conscription laws will apply to citizenship in this case. I think it is an important point, given that the military just announced it wants to mobilize 400,000 reservists.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I might have missed something, but at no point have I ever heard this, whether in the press or from advocates. I would say that this is the first Conservative talking about conscription, in my experience.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

I spoke about this the other day.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he apparently has spoken about it before.

I do not know if there has been another Conservative talking about conscription. We can raise all sorts of hypotheticals. The key is that, as we said before, citizenship law in Canada has to be consistent. It cannot be two-tiered. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice said that it is two-tiered and that we have to act to rectify this.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate we are having regarding citizenship.

Within the riding of Waterloo, I have had constituents tell me about their experiences. These are hard-working Canadians who have had opportunities to be abroad. I think global citizenship has some value to it. They have shared the importance of this legislation.

There is also frustration within the riding of Waterloo when it comes to the Conservative Party's disregard for what Canadians decided six months ago in terms of who they sent to Parliament. The Conservative leader made despicable comments about the RCMP, without having regard for these independent, hard-working institutions. Think about the wrong-headed comments on court rulings. Courts have an independent job to do. They are not partisan entities.

I would like to hear the member's comments in regard to the court ruling and the importance of this government, and all parties, having a role to play respecting what the courts do and the work they provide.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague of almost 10 years, who devotes herself every day to the needs, interests and concerns of the people of Waterloo.

I will focus on this: Ultimately, this is a bill relating to citizenship and, yes, immigration. My colleague mentioned the Leader of the Opposition, who never fails to play games on issues of immigration. Just a few years ago, he was talking about Canada needing more immigration. He was visiting cultural centres and promising to stay the deportation of those who were found to be ineligible to be in Canada. This is the kind of so-called leadership we find across the aisle.

Now he is singing a different tune. It might have something to do with a leadership review that is coming up in January. This is not an acceptable approach. As I said in question period a few days ago, the politicization of citizenship and immigration matters has no place in this country. We need reform, but we do not need games.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the Westminster system in Parliament. Let me remind him that, in the Westminster system, it is Parliament that is supreme. While we respect the judiciary, it is Parliament that makes laws.

He also mentioned that Supreme Court ruling. I would like him to tell me where in that Supreme Court ruling the court said that we had to have unfettered chain migration, that we did not need to have background checks and that we did not need to have language requirements.

Could he tell me where in the judgment it says that?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling, but I digress.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he said, “Supreme Court”.

In any case, what is required is a law that is consistent with the charter. The cumulative test provides a substantial connection that meets the requirement set out by the court.

As for the Westminster system, I am glad the member has served on the student council at Queen's University. I congratulate him on that, but this is the House of Commons, and what is required is respect for the House of Commons. Report stage, yesterday, showed how this place actually works.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a bill that was precipitated by the fact that the Liberals decided not to challenge a lower court ruling that would allow unfettered citizenship by descent and create untold citizens of convenience. The department does not even know how many.

We are now on the third reading of the bill after the government decided to gut amendments passed by the committee that would have required basic things like language, cumulative residency and security checks. After not challenging a court ruling, the Liberals gutted these amendments, which were common sense. Even The Globe and Mail said that the amendment we put in place was common sense and that the government should have accepted the Conservative and Bloc amendment regarding the residency requirement.

The parliamentary secretary's comments were rote and kind of feckless, frankly. I want to say why.

This bill deals, fundamentally, with the value of Canadian citizenship. The reason I cannot support the bill, particularly without those amendments, is that, without national identity, integration is impossible and the collapse of our country is inevitable. I want to lay out why we need to put more value on Canadian citizenship, why the bill so denigrates Canadian citizenship and why it is going to create citizens of convenience that some future parliament will have to deal with.

The bureaucrats who are listening in the lobby can mark my words: Future courts will be dealing with this. Future ministers will be looking at evacuations from some country. This bill would create citizenship of convenience. It would take away the notion of responsibility from citizenship. It would impact our country, absolutely, in the future.

What is Canada's national identity? Ahead of every election, I try to find the reason for running again in order to ground myself in that purpose. For all of us, of all political stripes, running is such an honourable thing to do but also comes with a cost to our families. I took my family to visit a visual art installation at the National Gallery that uses Thomas Tallis's Spem in Alium. It is a speaker set-up. We sat in the middle of the installation and I tried to explain to my family that this was why I was running. When our democratic institution of pluralism is upheld, Canada is a unique, beautiful thing in history. It has all these individual voices. They have disparate tones and disparate harmonies, but they come together and work together. They are greater than the sum of their parts. I encourage people to go and sit there if they ever want a moment of inspiration in terms of what our national identity can and should be.

In telling them that Cardiff's installation at the National Gallery still offers an accurate analogy for what Canada is today, I may have sold my children a bill of goods. Many in Canada would now describe our nation less as a melodically pluralistic counterpoint and more as a ghettoized cacophony. That sentiment flares up most often in discussions of skyrocketing immigration levels, especially regarding whether Canada can integrate all the people it has welcomed in the last five years.

Attempting to answer that question leads to even murkier waters. In 2025, what does integration into Canada mean, anyway? What is the value of Canadian citizenship? That ambiguity belies the actual problem. Canada's sense of national identify has been eroded by the government to the point of non-existence. Immigrants cannot be expected to integrate into something that is not there.

In recent decades, successive Liberal governments have used legislation and regulation like the piece in front of us today to segregate Canada along regional and ethnocultural lines. Thus, in 2025, our country Canada is perhaps most aptly described as lines on a map, home to tens of millions encouraged by their federal government to prioritize differences over similarities, to reject nationhood for globalism, to take from the country before giving back and to self-flagellate over historical feelings rather than build on the nation's strengths for future resilience.

Upon hearing that statement, many of my colleagues will have a visceral reaction. That is good. How dare anyone question whether Canada still has a national identity. We are a multicultural nation based on the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equality of opportunity. Canada is the place where newcomers can retain their cultural identity while plugging into a sense of peaceful, pluralistic Canadian nationhood. That is the Canadian national identity, right? Well, it is not today, not after the Liberal government.

While that might be the prevailing romantic notion of Canadian identity held by some colleagues who have eroded it over the last decade, it is no longer accurate to describe it as reality, and admitting the truth is the first step in addressing the problem. For people requiring evidence, it abounds in our country's recent political history. Canada's political left has long led the global postnational movement, best described as the purposeful erosion of national identities in favour of supernational organizations and globalism.

Former Liberal prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau set Canada on a postnational course with the 1971 multiculturalism policy, which encouraged newcomers to retain their cultural differences rather than embrace a shared Canadian identity. The erosion of Canada's national identity was further normalized in the 1980s by the Liberal government's national energy program, which deepened economic divisions between western and central Canada.

The aftermath of the 1995 Quebec referendum further contributed to the erosion of Canadian national identity by entrenching exclusive Quebec nationalism. Then, in 2000, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien stated the following in a speech:

Canada has become a postnational, multicultural society. It contains the globe within its borders, and Canadians have learned that their two international languages and their diversity are a comparative advantage and a source of continuing creativity and innovation. Canadians are, by virtue of history and necessity, open to the world.

Former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper's government pumped the brakes on postnationalism during its tenure. On immigration, former prime minister Harper's government prioritized national identity with stricter language requirements for citizenship and a tougher citizenship exam. Regarding Quebec, it enshrined a key nationhood motion, which included the phrase “within a united Canada”.

Economically, Harper attempted to ease western alienation by bolstering Canada's natural resource industries. Culturally, Harper's government focused on heritage spending on platforming nation-building victories like the War of 1812.

However, all those reforms were reversed and far exceeded after former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau took office in 2015. Essayists discussing Trudeau Junior's famous 2015 postnationalism statement that “[t]here is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” often forget that he did not just say those words but that he also operationalized them through a decade of socialist-oriented, postnationalist policies, so much so that his fervent focus on abolishing Canadian national identity may be remembered as the most enduring aspect of his legacy.

On immigration, the Trudeau Liberals narrowed the age range for mandatory language requirements in citizenship applications, thus diminishing shared language roles in the Canadian identity for newcomers. They eliminated in-person citizenship oath requirements. They sought to erase references in the Canadian citizenship study guide to practices like female genital mutilation as abhorrent, arguably normalizing their importation into Canada.

They turned a blind eye to judicial rulings, allowing immigration status to factor into sentencing violent criminals, valuing the process of entry into the country over the responsibilities associated with citizenship. They allowed Canada's compassionate asylum system to be abused and made a mockery of. Thus we have the bill we have in front of us today.

The Trudeau Liberals have also normalized the practice of importation of conflicts from newcomers' countries of origin, rather than primarily encouraging the shedding of those quarrels in favour of a pluralistic, united Canadian identity rooted in western democratic values. This phenomenon is best exemplified by the Trudeau government's tolerance of diasporic lobby groups' influence in elections and in Canadian institutions while simultaneously turning a blind eye to groups who sought to plant international conflicts and even terrorist principles in Canadian soil. Despite clear evidence of rising foreign interference in elections, the Liberals have yet to implement a foreign agent registry.

The Trudeau Liberals have also prioritized cultural and ethnic differences over a shared ethos of equality in hiring and storytelling. For example, they embedded divisive, quasi-racist hiring policies into federal funding for educational institutions, they allowed Canada's publicly funded national broadcaster to consider abandoning objectivity for racialized narratives, and now they allocate news funding based on whether or not outlets sufficiently highlight ethnic, religious or other group differences.

Rather than enlisting newcomers to help strengthen a cohesive national identity, such as by constructively addressing the nation's historic injustices while simultaneously celebrating its positive achievements, the Trudeau Liberals actively erased symbols of shared historic Canadian identity from public view. They redesigned the Canadian passport to replace images of Canadian national heroes like Terry Fox with inert objects like a wheelbarrow. They supported activities that established the Canadian flag as a symbol of shame as opposed to a representation of patriotism. They worked to erase Canada's founders from places of prominence.

Thus, Canada's political left has profoundly succeeded in transforming Canada into a postnational non-nation, free from the trappings of cohesive national identity.

People who might argue that this was a good thing are very wrong. What Justin Trudeau overlooked in his Liberal government's zealous pursuit of postnationalism is that his father's multicultural vision could thrive only under robust western democratic institutions. Without a government's prioritizing, above all else and especially over partisan ideology, the safeguarding of principles like freedom of speech, secularism and the equality of opportunity, multiculturalism will inevitably destroy a peaceful and democratic nation.

The proof is in the pudding. Today in Canada, after decades of postnational identity's destroying policies, less than half of Canadian youth say they would fight for our country. This marks a startling shift from generations ago, when Canadians fought in great wars for what seemed to be immutable freedoms. Diasporic conflicts now erupt on Canadian streets, hate crimes against ethnic and religious groups have surged and the once-strong Canadian consensus on immigration has been solidly broken by the government.

If Canadians want to reverse the pluralism-destroying course that Liberal postnationalism has set us on, every member of the House, regardless of political stripe, must acknowledge that postnationalism has eroded Canada's national identity to the point of non-existence. That state of affairs is likely the biggest threat to our sovereignty today; no other nation is. History proves this conclusion correct.

For a civilization to survive the test of history, it needs some sort of cohesive shared identity; without it, collapse occurs. There are even examples to be found within Canada's own evolution in the 20th century. In the early 1900s, a Canadian national identity had taken root in spite of high levels of immigration; it was forged in the crucibles of battlefields like Vimy Ridge, where people of many backgrounds fought together as Canadians, united by the shared values of democracy, rule of law, bilingualism and loyalty to the Crown. To be Canadian then was to embrace English or French as a primary language, respect parliamentary institutions and demonstrate civic duty through collective efforts in war and in nation-building.

Fast-forward to today. Our domestic efforts have failed to build critical national infrastructure and have allowed our military to atrophy to the point of near non-functionality. Our foreign policy rewards the tactics of terrorist organizations and abandons western allies in times of crisis.

Logic dictates that if the Liberal government continues eroding the western democratic values that once but arguably no longer underpin Canada's rapidly disappearing pluralistic national identity, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equality in the application of the rule of law, then collapse is what should be expected of Canada's once-vaunted pluralism.

People looking for a remedy from the Liberal Prime Minister who sits here today will be disappointed, as evidenced by the fact that he put forward a bill like the one that is before the House and then gutted amendments on things like language requirements.

The Prime Minister has long been an adherent to the World Economic Forum's globalist brand of postnationalism, and the best definition of Canada's national identity he managed to muster was that we are not the United States. His new Minister of Canadian Identity managed an arguably worse response, offering pithiness like “I won't stand here and pretend that I can tell you what [a] Canadian...is or should be.”

It is telling that neither of them could define Canadian identity as rooted in shared respect for things like the rule of western-based law, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equality of opportunity. Nor could they talk about the supremacy of this place and the fact that we here, who represent all the Canadians in this country and abroad, have the right to challenge court rulings and to set law; that is a core part of what we do to strengthen Canadian national identity.

The reality for the current Liberal Prime Minister is that his government must reverse the many changes his predecessor made under the Liberals' aggressive postnational doctrine, in order to rebuild Canada's national identity, prevent pluralism's collapse and retain Canadian sovereignty.

How can we talk about things that are in the national interest if the government cannot define what the national interest is? If the current Liberal Prime Minister fails, the effect will be the same as if he were to tip over the art installation in the National Gallery I spoke about, a shameful and purposeful squandering of an intricate and delicate masterpiece. That is why I stand here and oppose the bill.

There should be no citizens of convenience. If somebody is to be a citizen of this country, they should be able to speak one of Canada's official languages. They should have a clear and demonstrated ability to understand that the responsibility of Canadian citizenship is to uphold our democratic institutions. How can we measure that? We can do so through a citizenship test, but the Liberals gutted that amendment we made at committee.

The fact that the government put a bill forward after not challenging a lower-court ruling on something as vital as the value of Canadian citizenship and who should be eligible for that is bananas. It says that the Liberals do not give a rip about Canada's national identity, and it reconfirms the current Prime Minister's continuation of a postnational doctrine.

We have been in a period of time, especially with the trade situation we find ourselves in with our neighbours to the south, when the Prime Minister is talking about the need to have nation-building initiatives and whatnot, but he cannot even talk about what Canada's national identity is. The only thing I have heard the Prime Minister talk about with respect to that is the fact that we are not American. What are we, then?

There are very clear definitions of what it could mean to be Canadian, even in Canada's citizenship guide right now. There is not a cohesive definition, but certainly on this side of the House we could manage a definition that was rooted in pride, in democratic institutions and in how to maintain pluralism and multiculturalism through respect for the rule of law.

What we have seen with the Liberal government is the denigration of Canada's democratic institutions, the Supreme Court ruling this week on child pornography, and censorship bills that take away our ability to speak truth to power. These are all things that erode Canadian sovereignty and support postnationalism. There has never been a more important bill to oppose than this one.

For people who might have been affected by the small number of lost Canadians, there was a bill in front of the Senate years ago that would have addressed the issues, but the Liberals expanded the legislation far beyond the scope of what our colleague in the Senate tried to do. The minister already has powers to rectify circumstances of citizenship.

However, what the Liberals would do today in the bill before us, especially by gutting the amendments the Conservatives put forward, is entrench the sense of postnationalism in the country, further erase our national identity, erode our pluralism and further devalue Canadian citizenship.

Oftentimes in the House, we are tasked with the mundane details of program spending or of different types of policy, but we have to be tasked and seized with restoring Canada's national identity and with restoring and protecting the value of Canadian citizenship.

I implore colleagues to vote against the bill, to make the Liberals go back to the table and come forward with a bill that is narrow in scope. There are tools at their disposal that they could use to challenge court rulings, but they have chosen not to. The value of Canadian citizenship, our national identity, is worth something more than what is in front of us today, so I implore colleagues to vote against the bill, protect our heritage and protect the value of Canadian citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member get out into the community if she does not quite understand what our Canadian identity is all about. At the end of the day, this legislation would add value.

The member talks, and she has put a whole pile of stuff on the record. She talks about, for example, military spending and that we are not doing enough. Her leader actually went to 1%. We are bringing it to 2%, with a goal of hitting 5%. The member talks about not supporting allied countries. She and her Conservative Party voted against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. She talks about infrastructure, and we are going to see massive investment in infrastructure, no doubt, in the budget. The Conservatives, true to form, will vote against that.

Does the member not have an ounce of respect for the democratic process that she—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We need to provide time for a response.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to stand here to reject Liberal postnationalism, to reject everything the Liberals have done to erode the value of citizenship and the value of our democratic institutions, and to fight. I will stand here to fight for what is right.

My colleague opposite has a lot of shame to wear for all the years he has stood by to actively help erode our national identity, our military and our national institutions. He stands up in here day after day to say, “It is okay the Liberals upheld this court ruling.” The Liberals have not even talked about the child pornography ruling.

I have been out in the community. I see a Canada that has been reft apart by levels of crime I have never seen before, by hunger, by loss of affordability and by a loss of a Canadian national dream. We need to restore that, and that is what Conservatives would do.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I may have some disagreements with my colleague, I cannot help but agree—for the most part, of course—with what she said in her presentation on national identity.

In Quebec, the issue of collective identity is critical. A cornerstone of Quebec's collective identity includes the idea of secularism. How can we integrate migrants if we do not have a collective identity? It is absolutely impossible.

The challenge of integration is a challenge that Quebec must face. That is why we are trying to establish immigration guidelines. We want to ensure that migrants are integrated into society in French and that they respect the values of Quebec society, which include gender equality and secularism.

It is true that, within the Canadian framework, it is much more challenging to have this type of thinking. I would like my colleague to tell us more about the issue of integrating migrants in a context where we are told that a national identity does not exist.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that Canada needs to have a strong national identity that is clearly defined and supported in shared symbols by a government that rejects postnationalism, which the government has not done.

I want to talk about language because the government gutted a language requirement amendment from the bill, which the Bloc and the Conservatives worked on together. Briefly, my maiden name is Godin. I am speaking English in the House of Commons because of laws in Manitoba that prevented my family from being able to learn the language. My family history was robbed from me.

Part of my identity was robbed from me, and now we have a government that is rejecting that new citizens should have to learn one of Canada's official languages. It would further erode Canada's national identity. It would further erode the fact that we have two official languages in this country, and again, it would erode that principle of national identity, which Canadians need for newcomers to integrate into our shared social and economic—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

With questions and comments, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul has the floor.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her incredible speech outlining how, since the 1970s, successive Liberal governments have worked very hard to dismantle a national identity in Canada and the obvious detriment that has caused in society.

My question for my colleague is in regard to what is happening through the courts with respect to those people who are not yet citizens in Canada, but are seeking to become citizens, and who then break the law. We are seeing concerning things that have been happening after 10 years of influence on our court system. We are seeing that, for them to become Canadian citizens, they are making excuses and having lighter sentences for people who are breaking Canadian laws. Can she comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is supreme. We have the right to make laws in this place. That is what parliamentarians need to re-embrace after a decade of Liberal governments acquiescing to the courts' nonsensical rulings, such as the ones they should have appealed that precipitated this bill and the Supreme Court ruling that said there should be no mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography. Across political stripes, we had Premier Wab Kinew of the NDP in Manitoba say this was a ridiculous ruling and the UCP premier in Alberta saying that the ruling needed to be appealed.

Part of Canada's national identity and protecting our pluralism has to be protecting Canada's democratic institutions, which includes the supremacy of Parliament. It includes our challenging court rulings. We have to get back to our roots in so many different ways to restore those ties that bind us together as Canadians and that allow a pluralism to flourish. If we do not do that, the collapse of the country is inevitable.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so sick and tired of this “Canada is broken” narrative from the Conservative party. I am a proud Canadian, as is everyone in my riding. My family tree goes back to Laura Secord and the United Empire Loyalists, and I grew up and lived in Hamilton, where the Battle of Stoney Creek was one of the defining battles that kept Canada Canadian and part of the British Empire, so I will not be lectured on Canadian identity by the Conservative Party of Canada.

My question is this: Do these Conservatives have no shame?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is big talk from somebody who ran for a party that has pulled down all the statues of the leaders of our country. That is tough talk from a guy who ran for a party that was rooted in postnationalism and that supports disgusting rulings, such as no mandatory minimums for child pornography. Do they have no shame?

Those guys do not have any shame, but Conservatives will always fight for our country, for shared national identity, which is rooted in things like respect for the rule of law, for responsibilities associated with Canadian citizenship, for affordable budgets and for an affordable life. That is what we are fighting for, and I think my colleague opposite needs to check himself on the shame meter today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her speech. She and I participated in a few missions together as members of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. During those missions, we tried to explain who we are.

I want to go back to the committee's work. In her speech, my colleague talked about language. The Bloc and the Conservatives supported amendments concerning language. What are the consequences of those amendments being rejected? More importantly, immigrants must satisfy a language requirement, so why is that requirement not in this bill? Why were the amendments rejected?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are the practical aspects of the rejection of the language amendment, and then there is the more macro-level impact. Practically, by rejecting the language requirement, somebody could be an adult, gain citizenship through descent, and not be able to speak one of Canada's official languages. My colleagues opposite are mocking that. To me, that goes to the macro-level narrative, which is that the Liberals do not believe there is a national identity, and they do not believe in the importance of language rights.

By rejecting this amendment, they are sending a signal that it is okay to gain citizenship by descent, as an adult, without being able to speak one of Canada's official languages. How can we be unified as a nation if there is not a requirement to speak one of Canada's two official languages? How can we continue to respect how Canada operates if that is not in place?

My colleague mentioned that we have travelled with the Inter-Parliamentary Union before, and travelling with her has given me a lot of insight into why French language rights are so important in Quebec. She helped me rediscover my family history, too, and how language rights have impacted me. I have to say that, by rejecting this amendment, the Liberals have sent a strong signal that they do not give a rip about language rights and they do not believe that language is an integral part of Canadian national identity or the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C‑3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. I will focus on the all-important issue of citizenship, because that is the crux of today's debate.

First and foremost, I would like to debunk some myths. Since the beginning of the debate on Bill C‑3, the Liberals and the NDP have repeatedly attempted to demonize the intentions of the opposition, whether Bloc Québécois or Conservative. They have accused the Bloc and the Conservatives of being a bunch of racists and xenophobes, of fuelling anti-immigration rhetoric and so on.

Now, I have to say that the Bloc Québécois is used to hearing such accusations. This is nothing new. We know that others often use such accusations to shut down criticism by discrediting the speaker. They can then avoid having to debate the other person or justify their position. After all, they have simply discredited that person.

We refused to let that intimidate us. We asked questions and even proposed amendments, even though this upset the Liberals on the other side. What is even more interesting in these circumstances is that the bill is not even an immigration bill; it is an emigration bill. The bill would apply equally to everyone, to any descendant of a person who has citizenship and decides to go live abroad—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am sure that my colleague will share his time if he is asked.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

That request requires the consent of the House.

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères can continue his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his very appropriate intervention. I wanted to share my time with the member for Shefford, who will certainly have a lot to say about the bill as well.

As I was saying, Bill C‑3 applies equally to everyone. It applies to anyone who has obtained citizenship by birth or naturalization, whether or not they are an immigrant or, like me, someone who was born here and whose family has been citizens for several generations. The bill will also apply to me. If I decide to leave Canada to live elsewhere and my descendants do not return to live here, this bill will apply to them just as it would apply to any other immigrant.

The notion that these proposals are anti-immigrant is simply wrong. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion we are having today. I would like to clarify this, as it is creating some confusion, given that what we are discussing is citizenship. Immigrants are people coming into the country, and emigrants are those leaving the country. This bill does not apply to immigrants, it applies to emigrants. That is the difference. An emigrant leaves the country and will no longer be living here. The purpose of this bill is to define the criteria that should be applied for granting citizenship to the descendants of people who have left the country. This applies to everyone, regardless of religion, skin colour or any other personal characteristics, with no distinction as to race, ancestry or anything else. It is equal for everyone, without exception.

As for the current state of the law, it already allows two things. Firstly, people who leave the country keep their citizenship. If a person has citizenship and goes to live somewhere else, unless they no longer want it and give it up, they do not lose their citizenship because they went to live somewhere else. This has always been the case. Secondly, the law as it now stands allows citizenship to be passed on to the first generation born and living outside the country. If I leave the country to go and live abroad and I have children, I can pass my citizenship down to my children. That is the law as it currently stands.

Today, we are discussing the possibility of expanding that right so that not only the first generation of persons born abroad, but also the second and subsequent generations, may obtain Canadian citizenship. We are having this debate because the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the current law is too restrictive. In the court's view, the first-generation limit on citizenship is unconstitutional. The Liberals had a choice: They could challenge the ruling, or they could accept it and amend the law. The Liberals chose not to challenge that ruling. What they said, indirectly, is that they were in agreement with the court's ruling.

The court also decided to give Parliament six months to define what constitutes a substantial connection with Canada. Everyone knows what happened over the past few months. There was an election, and it took longer because of that. The new deadline is November 20, just a few weeks from now. What will happen if Parliament does not comply? Since the judge ruled it is unconstitutional, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling would become the law if there is no challenge to the ruling. Thus, the current rule setting out the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent would no longer exist. There would no longer be any limits on citizenship by descent. This means that it would be unlimited until the end of time, even 100 years, 1,000 years or as much as 10,000 years from now, and even if it involves the descendants of the descendants of people who no longer live here. They would still get citizenship. That appears to be the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's view, unless the government intervenes to counter it.

Today, we are debating Bill C-3, which is actually the very same as Bill C-71. It is a carbon copy of the former bill. Although a bill was introduced prior to the election, an election was called before we could resolve the matter. What we are examining now is basically an ultimatum from the government and, indirectly, from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. This is partly because an election was called, but it is also because if we choose not to define the conditions under which a citizen born outside Canada qualifies for citizenship, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling will apply by default. The onus is on us, and the government is asking that we support the bill before us.

When we examined this bill, the first question that came to mind for the Bloc Québécois was this: What criterion does the government wish to impose? The criterion it wishes to impose is based on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which states that a person must have resided in Canada for 1,095 days. A descendant of a Canadian citizen would therefore have to have resided in Canada for 1,095 days, the equivalent of three years. The government itself admitted that it looked to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act when it established this criterion.

We thought that sounded a bit lenient, but we decided we would do our homework by studying the bill, asking questions and sending the bill to committee. At committee, we heard from witnesses, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We asked questions, such as how many people would be affected by Bill C-3, how many more citizens the bill would create, and how many more people would be entitled to vote. The government side told us that they did not know, but that there would not be very many, a hundred, perhaps a thousand. The government had no figures to give us. We were being asked to vote on a bill without knowing what the repercussions of the bill would be. That basically sums it up.

We asked the question again. The Parliamentary Budget Officer seemed to have done a bit of work on the topic, because he estimated that the bill could affect 150,000 people. That is not an insignificant number. It is not a handful of individuals or even a few hundred. It is a lot of people. Let me also be clear that in the event of an international conflict, those 150,000 people who do not live here would need us to charter planes to go and get them. As Canadian citizens, those people would have to be defended and looked after. That also means 150,000 people who could potentially obtain a passport, as well as the right to vote. On that subject, we might ask ourselves this: In which riding would these people be allowed to vote? No one knows. However, we do know that there are a number of ridings where the results are often very close. We saw that in the last election. Some ridings are won by a whisker. The government would like us to meekly agree and let this bill go through as easily as a letter goes through the mail, as the saying goes in Quebec, although these days, it is no secret that the mail does not go through all the time, especially during an election.

For the Bloc Québécois, this simply did not work. We believe that citizenship is not a prize to be given out in a box of cereal or handed out like candy on Halloween. We believe it should be taken seriously, so we proposed some amendments. Knowledge of French or English should be a basic requirement. It seems logical to me that citizenship should not be given to someone who does not speak the language of the country. We agree with the 1,095 days, but for immigrants, it is 1,095 days over a period of five years. Why not apply the same requirement in this case, since the government took inspiration from this criterion for its bill? Also, why should there not be an assessment to check whether the person poses a threat to national security? Why should there not be an annual report tabled in Parliament about how many people obtained citizenship under this law?

All of these are proposals that we wanted to put forward. Unfortunately, the government teamed up with the NDP and dismissed them out of hand. It was so insulting of the government to act that way. We are disappointed that the reasonable proposals we put forward in good faith were rejected like that.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very informative speech. Can the member speak a bit more about the consequences of implementing a new law and the impact the Ontario Superior Court ruling would have on that decision if the law was not implemented?

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

Mr. Speaker, I already gave an explanation in my speech. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice's decision will apply by default unless we pass the bill before us today. What I said, and what my colleague needs to remember, is that the amendments we proposed were reasonable. Requiring knowledge of French is not too much to ask, nor is it too much to ask someone to spend three out of five years in the country over their lifetime. They could attend CEGEP or university or work on contract for a few years to obtain their citizenship.

It boggles my mind that every time we moved a perfectly reasonable amendment, it was voted down. Members simply voted against every amendment at every opportunity. To me, this points to the government's intransigence, and that is completely unreasonable.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the introduction to his speech, my colleague did a great job of explaining a major problem facing the federation, which is the fact that people try to smear Quebec's reputation whenever there is talk of immigration. The same thing happens when there is talk of secularism.

Looking back, the same issue came up when Bill 101 was passed. However, today, not a single elected official would suggest that Bill 101 is a regressive law that prevents people from integrating.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether we are experiencing something similar when it comes to secularism. Perhaps in 25 years, federalist politicians will understand that it was a good thing after all.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would say that there is a big difference between when Bill 101 was passed and the bill that is before us, which we wanted to amend. The same applies to the issue of secularism, a subject we could no doubt discuss.

The main difference is that Quebec does not have a majority in this House. We do not have a majority, so the rest of Canada will decide for us and determine the criteria for obtaining citizenship.

In an independent country, we will decide for ourselves the criteria for granting citizenship.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the member's speech. Clearly, he has a lot of knowledge on the topic. I did not follow the bill through committee really closely. I was just wondering if he could comment about whether there are other countries that are doing this or proposing this. What are the differences between those countries and Canada, particularly given old-world versus new-world issues? I am wondering if he has any comments around that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not done an in-depth analysis of how citizenship is granted around the world, but I know that there are several different approaches and several possible ideologies.

In my view, what we proposed is reasonable. I believe my Conservative Party colleagues agree with us, since we voted together on these amendments. I urge the government to listen to what was said in committee and, above all, to reflect carefully on this.

The government is about to grant citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 150,000 people who do not live here. They will not even be required to know French or English, nor will they be required to have even a basic knowledge of the country, since the government does not want to incorporate a citizenship test. This measure does not even require a security check.

I think this could be a case of wilful blindness, a desire to see the world as though there were no problems anywhere, as though everything were easy, as though this citizenship had no value whatsoever.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and I would like to ask him a question.

One of my constituents in my riding of Waterloo was born abroad. She has a family who is proudly Canadian, who speak both official languages and who contribute to our community and our country. She attended a conference abroad and could not return to Canada without putting her unborn child at risk, so the child is not Canadian.

I would like the member to tell me what he means. Should this child be Canadian? He will speak both official languages and contribute to Canada. He lives here in our country, but he is not entitled to citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer to that question is this: Do the child's parents speak French or English? Did the child's parents spend at least three consecutive years in the country over a five-year period?

These criteria do not seem that extreme to me. Am I wrong?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2025, following my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who explained the issue well.

This topic interests me because certain places in Quebec have been identified as settlement areas, and Granby is one of them. These are communities located in regions outside major urban centres. The Quebec department is asking people to settle there and discover Quebec culture, which is who we are. Granby is included in these settlement areas, and that is a tremendous asset. One organization in Granby is working very hard to teach immigrants French so that they can take their place in Granby's regional community. It is called SERY.

I would like to salute the members of that organization this morning as they prepare to present their intercultural recital on Saturday, which is returning after a forced hiatus because of the pandemic. This performance is being presented as part of Quebec's week of intercultural encounters, which is being held this week, from November 3 to 9, with the theme “Quebec in common”. The goal is to really emphasize encounters and exchanges between Quebeckers of all origins. This is extremely important, and I will be stopping by to say hello to everyone at Verbe Divin Secondary School on Saturday and to take in the cultural richness, beauty and various forms of artistic expression.

That said, today we are talking about Bill C-3, which corrects a historical injustice in the Citizenship Act in response to a December 2023 ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which found that the first-generation limit on citizenship is unconstitutional. This limit was put in place by the Conservatives in 2009. Now we are in a bit of a bind, because if we do not take action, the court's ruling is going to apply instead of Bill C‑3. Could that open the door even wider? We do not know, but we want to know. That is why we are debating Bill C‑3 in the House today.

We also know that this issue has been dragging on for years. Bill C-71 and Bill S-245 were introduced to address citizenship. An election was called and the bill died on the Order Paper. Now we have to hurry due to this court ruling and the fact that this matter has unfortunately been dragging on for some time.

The goal is to make the right to citizenship fair, consistent and inclusive. It is true that the current law creates some bizarre situations. I am going to begin by talking about the Bloc Québécois's position and the amendments that were proposed in committee. Next, I will talk about what the bill fixes, and I will close with a few statistics.

For now, the Bloc Québécois is reserving judgment. We are going to wait and see how things play out. We know there are negotiations going on. We are a bit disappointed about what happened, and we are asking that the work done at committee be respected. The amendments were rejected at report stage. We opposed the amendments from the government, which teamed up with the NDP. Those amendments sought to eliminate the requirement that the 1,095 days of residence take place within a five-year period, abolish the tests for adult applicants, and remove the obligation to report to Parliament. These are important matters. They are not trivial.

In contrast, we did support the amendments presented at committee that called for a residence requirement of 1,095 days in Canada during the five years preceding the child's birth. We also supported the amendment that established a language test, a citizenship knowledge test and a security assessment for applicants 18 years of age and over. The Conservative members and my Bloc Québécois colleague, who rose to speak just before I did, told us in their speeches how important these amendments are. They deal with language, culture and citizenship knowledge. They also deal with the security risk people might pose. That is essential. The same requirements apply to other naturalized citizens. They are requirements, and we want to have the same rules for everyone. In a nutshell, that is what we are asking for.

We also want accountability through an annual report to Parliament on the number of citizenships that are granted. We have the right to get a report and to know where we stand. We want these measures to ensure that applicants have a real connection to Canada, as required by the court. We need to ensure that this is the case. We are concerned that the new amendments proposed by the NDP and the Liberals will water down this bill and undermine the essential amendments that we worked on in committee with the Conservatives.

This bill also seeks to correct absurd situations, as I mentioned earlier, where a child born abroad to Canadian parents cannot obtain citizenship. Take the case of Jean-François as an example. His father was born abroad, and he himself was born abroad while his father was completing his doctorate in the United States. Even though he returned to Quebec when he was three months old, and even though he grew up here and spent his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was not automatically granted citizenship.

The spark that ignited this whole debate came from Don Chapman, a former airline pilot who worked for United Airlines and whose story attracted public attention. Chapman discovered that his citizenship had been revoked when his father emigrated to the United States. His astute demonstration that this problem affected many Canadians, such as Roméo Dallaire, without them even knowing it, forced Parliament to take serious action on this issue.

The bill aims to remedy the status of the following individuals: Canadian women who lost their citizenship before 1947 upon marrying a non-Canadian; individuals born between 1977 and 1981 who lost their citizenship because they did not renew it by age 28; and children adopted abroad whose Canadian parent died before the adoption. It would fix situations such as these.

I will conclude my speech by presenting some data. We will also assess the scope of this bill. My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères mentioned that this reform would affect 150,000 people over five years. The estimated cost is $20.8 million, which is not insignificant. We know that 91.2% of the Canadian population already has citizenship, that 50.6% are women, and that gender equity with regard to citizenship remains essential.

As well, 19.5% of the population is 65 or older. Many seniors have been affected by the old laws and exclusions. As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I have heard about some cases that deeply concern me. All of this has reduced naturalization rates, which were 57.5% for immigrants admitted between 2011 and 2015, down from 68.5% between 2006 and 2010. New citizens tend to integrate well: 93% are filing taxes in Canada 10 years after landing.

In Quebec, the percentage of first-generation individuals born outside of Canada has grown among young people, climbing from 9% to 18% in the 15- to 24-year-old age group. Among members of the second generation, it increased from 11% to 16% for that age group, according to Statistics Québec. In 2021, Statistics Quebec also reported that immigrant women accounted for 14.9% of all women in Quebec, excluding non-permanent residents.

As I was saying, a significant number of seniors could be affected by the old citizenship rules, including the parents and grandparents of the individuals concerned.

Staying with Quebec, it is estimated that nearly 10% of Quebeckers have at least one second-generation foreign-born parent, and nearly 10% of Quebeckers are second-generation immigrants, according to New Canadian Media.

This is a serious topic. In conclusion, I would like to say that, aside from everything the bill could change, this situation shows that the Liberals are not mindful of the minority mandate they received for a third time in the last election, nor do they respect the work done in committee. The committee heard from witnesses, and there were discussions and negotiations among MPs. The Conservatives and the Bloc worked hard on amendments to fix the flaws in this bill, but all that work was ultimately undone by the NDP and the Liberals. What a blatant lack of respect.

I want to acknowledge the work my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean did on this file. This is a minority government, and it should take that into account. Passing laws on closure and disregarding the work done in committee should not happen in this democratic institution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know there is a sense of disappointment within the Bloc in regard to their amendments, and I can understand and appreciate why.

I look at it in terms of birthright. There is a difference between birthright and naturalization of citizenship, in other words, from a permanent resident to a citizen.

Would the member not agree that principles of democracy here in Canada say that all members of Parliament are equal, and even though she might not like the position of the NDP, their votes should matter, too, and that is why their amendments failed? Should we not respect that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand my colleague's question correctly, he is saying that the amendments put forward by the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives were actually crucial.

All we wanted was for applicants to undergo a security test and be able to speak our language. We asked for accountability to Parliament. I think the proposed amendments absolutely respected democracy.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why undo the work that was done in committee? Everyone knows the Bloc Québécois is rigorous when it comes to correcting deficiencies, so why undo what was done in committee?

That is what we are having a hard time understanding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the safety of our fellow citizens must always be a priority for us all.

I have a simple question. Can my colleague explain why she thinks the Liberals opposed criminal background checks for people coming into Canada under this bill?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Liberals and say why they voted against that.

I would like to remind the House that naturalized citizens are subject to security screenings. Those requirements are already in place.

Why should the two groups be treated differently? Why should these applicants not also have to undergo security screenings? There is a reason why these amendments were put forward.

Someone should ask the Liberals that question. It is hard to understand their position. Security is a crucial and important issue. Security screening, language testing and knowledge of citizenship are important issues that should have been brought before the House and voted on.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship openly admitted in committee that she had no idea how many people would be affected by this bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer finally gave an estimate of 150,000 people.

The Bloc Québécois, with the support of the Conservatives, tabled an amendment to make sure that, after the bill is passed, a report is made to Parliament on how many people have benefited from the bill, meaning how many people have obtained citizenship because of it. Unfortunately, the Liberals rejected that amendment.

The Liberals currently have no idea how many people will be affected, and they do not even want to know. Why does my colleague think that is?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it would be good to know that.

Will it be 150,000 people? Will it be less or more? Evidently, the number of people affected has a financial impact. There needs to be accountability. As parliamentarians, we have the right to know and we should get an annual update. That would be critically important. There is a reason this amendment was proposed.

This confirms to me that, unfortunately, accountability to Parliament is not the Liberals' strong suit. They are not transparent. They do not show respect for democracy and the mandates they have received. Accountability to Parliament should be a given.

I sincerely hope that we will be able to get this annual report and find out the exact number of new citizens and the financial impact this will have. It is important.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Davenport, a great member of Parliament.

It is an honour to stand in the House of Commons today on behalf of the people of Scarborough—Woburn to talk about this important issue, Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. To me, this is a very simple piece of legislation that would extend automatic citizenship to anyone who was born abroad to Canadian parents before the legislation came into force, which I believe was in 2009. This includes people who are not currently able to claim citizenship by descent due to the first-generation limit, such as the remaining lost Canadians and their descendants.

This is about fairness, equality and protecting the rights of Canadians. The folks watching at home or paying attention to this debate should know that the Ontario Superior Court made a decision that was based on two parts of the Constitution. It was based on sections 6 and 15, which speak to mobility rights and equality rights. If Canadians living abroad have descendants, they have the right to be Canadians. It is a very simple piece of legislation.

I am an immigrant to this country. I was born in the U.K., in Yorkshire, England, in a town called Aidensfield. I spent the first four and a half years of my life in England. My mother is from a small town in Yorkshire called Barnsley. It is known for coal and glass-blowing. If we look at its coat of arms, that is what we see. My father is from a small island off the coast of Grenada called Carriacou, where there are about 10,000 people. My father went to England and met my mother, and they started a family and came to Canada.

To quote one of the greatest prime ministers this country has ever had, “Canada is the best country”, period. I love this country. It has been so good to the many people from Carriacou, Grenada, who have come here and people from all around the world.

The reason this issue is so important to all members of Parliament is that we understand the value of Canadian citizenship. We love our country. I would say there is no debate on that in the House; each of us loves our provinces and our country. Being immigrants, coming to Canada was probably the best decision my parents could have made. We value Canadian citizenship, and that is why this issue is such a difficult issue for some people to debate.

I grew up in Flemingdon Park in Toronto, and in that part of town, the majority of people were first-generation Canadians. There were people from all around the world in my building, from the Philippines, Korea, Europe, Africa, the Caribbean and a lot from Greece. It was such a multicultural environment. At dinnertime, in the hallway where I lived, we could smell every spice from around the world because there were so many different cultures in the building.

Many people now vilify immigrants coming to this country. They blame them for a lot of things, but make no mistake that outside of our indigenous past and the indigenous people in this country, every single person in this country has an immigrant past. They could have been here for 400 years, 40 years or four years. We all have an immigrant past in this country outside of our indigenous brothers and sisters. This country has been built by the efforts of many people from many different places around the world.

If someone who is granted Canadian citizenship decides to do some travelling, under a first-generation rule for someone who is the descendant of a Canadian citizen, they should be allowed to come back to their country. I believe the Ontario Superior Court made the right decision on that, because it is about equality and our ability to have mobility. It means that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we can leave, travel from and return to Canada at our own choosing as Canadians. It is part of our constitutional rights. It is part of our charter protections.

There are people who will say that Canada is broken. They will say that Canada is not the country it used to be. I do not believe that. I believe Canada is the greatest country in the world. I believe that wholeheartedly.

I was in an Uber a couple of days ago and met a gentleman who is a doctor in his country. He is a Canadian citizen now and is trying to get his Canadian medical residency in order to practise here. I said to him that I knew this was very challenging, because the statistics sometimes do not support any optimism in the possibility of becoming a doctor. He said the fact that he was in this country and that his rights were protected meant a lot to him. I asked him what he meant by that. He told me where he came from and talked about some of the challenges there. He said that we collectively as Canadians protect each other through our rights by making sure individual and collective rights are protected, and these are the things that help define who we are as Canadians.

We are here to protect each other. We are here to protect people so they can pray to whoever they decide, love whoever they want and have the ability say what they believe or criticize the government. These are the protections afforded under our Constitution. Within those constitutional rights, Canadian citizens have the right to enter and return to the country. There is another section for equality.

There is no question that we need to continue to support lost Canadians. We need to make sure there is a pathway so Canadians can return home and we can continue to build the type of country that has made all of us proud. To be Canadian is a very special thing, and I am so happy to stand here on behalf of my riding of Scarborough—Woburn and on behalf of all Canadians who agree with the position about making sure lost Canadians can return to this country. I want to say how proud I am to stand here and support this piece of legislation.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a Liberal questioner earlier talked about somebody who had been away on deployment and came back and had a child while away on deployment. I do not think this bill addresses that. I think it is second-generation citizenship that this bill in particular answers to.

I am wondering if the member opposite could clarify for me if this bill is indeed about the second generation.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must be reading something he was given by his whip, because I never talked about somebody being deployed and then coming back here. What I did talk about was that the bill would extend automatic citizenship to anyone who was born abroad to Canadian parents before the legislation came into force.

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

Mr. Speaker, the amendments put forward by the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative opposition were intended, among other things, to ensure that adult applicants have a knowledge of English or French, that they have undergone a security check for national security reasons, and that they were in the country for 1,095 days over five years. There was also a requirement to report on the number of citizenships granted under the bill.

I want to know why the member voted against that. I also want him to explain what was so unreasonable about these requests.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not at the committee when these issues were being deliberated on, but I am happy to hear that the Bloc Québécois is participating in the democratic process and making suggestions in the committee process for consideration. Some amendments will be passed and some will not, but I thank the member for his contribution to the strengthening of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide some clarity.

Let us imagine that I moved to Germany, and my daughter Cindy is born in Germany. If I had Cindy when I was in Germany, in order for her to pass on Canadian citizenship to my potential grandchild, she would have to prove a substantial connection to Canada of 1,095 days. As long as she was able to do that before she has a child, that child, my grandchild, would be a Canadian citizen.

Would my colleague agree that providing the opportunity for Canadians to have their grandchildren be Canadian is a good thing?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's grandchild was not afforded Canadian citizenship after he has contributed so much to Parliament, it would be a real shame.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad he is clarifying this.

The point is that if his daughter became a Canadian citizen, she could easily pass Canadian citizenship on to her children.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

She is a Canadian citizen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying she is a Canadian citizen, but if she was born in Germany, there would be a process for her to establish Canadian citizenship. If she is a Canadian citizen and has children while she is still in Germany, she too can pass it on. That is all currently—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, she can't.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if someone is a Canadian citizen, they are capable of passing it on. This bill, as far as I understand, is about the third generation and people who were missed.

[An hon. member]

No, it's the second.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Liberals could please explain to me where I am wrong on that.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the member has to go back and check the notes he was provided. It sounds like his question was not very precise and to the point and does not reflect the proposed legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, hypothetically, if my daughter Cindy was born in Germany, she would have to have a substantial connection to Canada before she gives birth so that her child, my future potential grandchild, would be deemed a Canadian citizen. That is what the legislation would do.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is right.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure, as always, to speak on behalf of the residents of my amazing constituency of Davenport on the third reading of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Before I go further, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I will spend the next nine minutes or so reminding members about why it is important for us to be passing Bill C-3, which, again, is in third reading. Soon we will be having a vote on it. This will be a nice refresher, because sometimes we go through a lot of things in this House and we can forget about the importance of the bill and why we are moving forward on it.

I am grateful there is broad, cross-party support for the key part of Bill C-3, which is fixing the status for the remaining lost Canadians. The bill would remedy the status of people who, were it not for the first-generation limit imposed in 2009, would have been Canadian citizens by descent from birth. This is largely a cohort of children 16 and under, and also includes the descendants of previously remedied lost Canadians. It would also address a small historical cohort who lost citizenship under outdated provisions of the 1977 Citizenship Act. Only 35 to 40 people came forward annually at first, and numbers have declined in recent years.

I have the privilege of being able to chair the committee, and I want to thank the committee members and witnesses for the collegial work that brought us to this point of consensus. During the committee study, members proposed and adopted several amendments to Bill C-3. The government carefully reviewed each one and appreciates the intent behind them. However, after our review, we remain confident that the original design of Bill C-3 achieves fairness and transparency in the citizenship system and upholds the value of Canadian citizenship.

The framework set out in this bill for citizenship by descent is straightforward. Once enacted, a Canadian parent born abroad may pass on their citizenship to a child also born or adopted abroad only if that parent has at least 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before the child's birth or adoption. Each generation after the first one must demonstrate their connection to Canada. If a parent does not, citizenship by descent stops with them.

Let me be clear on what this bill is not. It is not about creating a new way to immigrate to Canada nor about passing on Canadian citizenship in perpetuity while living abroad. It is about allowing the children of Canadians who have a strong connection to our country to access citizenship by descent regardless of where they happen to be born or adopted. It is about protecting the value of Canadian citizenship by requiring these parents to show they have spent meaningful time in Canada, before starting a family, reaffirming their connection to our great country.

The question, then, is how best to measure that connection. For people who move to Canada and seek to become part of its story, we already have a clear way to assess whether they have a substantial connection to this country. Under the Citizenship Act, permanent residents must accumulate at least 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada within a five-year period before they are eligible to apply for naturalization. However, citizenship by descent, which is what this bill is about, is different. It is not about granting citizenship to someone seeking to join Canada but about confirming citizenship at birth based on a parent's connection to Canada prior to their child's birth or adoption. For that reason, the test for connection must be applied differently.

Bill C-3 is built on a cumulative model. For Canadian parents born outside of Canada, this model counts every day they have spent here before starting a family regardless of when those days occurred. This approach recognizes the many ways Canadians maintain deep ties to their country, even when work, study or family responsibilities take them abroad.

Consider a Canadian child born overseas whose family relocates every two years for work. That child could live nearly a decade in Canada before age 18 without ever spending three consecutive years here within a five-year period. When that child grows up, they may start a family abroad or choose to adopt internationally. Under a fixed three-years-in-five time frame, their genuine life experience in Canada may not qualify their child to access citizenship.

However, the cumulative model allows Canadians whose lives span borders to demonstrate their connection to Canada from birth right up until they start a family, rather than expecting them to compress their presence into a narrow window. The 1,095-day cumulative requirement is therefore the fairest and most practical way to uphold the value of Canadian citizenship. Importing the naturalization requirements into citizenship by descent would conflate two distinct policy purposes and risk excluding the children of Canadians whose ties to Canada were built over time.

The integrity of Canadian citizenship depends on applying the right standards in the right context. For people who move to Canada, the naturalization process assesses their readiness to join the Canadian family. It requires—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order out of respect for the interpreters and to avoid a problem.

They are telling us that a telephone seems to be interfering with the audio.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for her intervention.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start from maintaining integrity and fairness.

The integrity of Canadian citizenship depends on applying the right standards in the right context. For people who move to Canada, the naturalization process assesses their readiness to join the Canadian family. It requires establishing a substantial connection to this country through recent residence, knowledge of Canada and knowledge of one of our official languages, tests that confirm they are ready to become part of our shared civic life.

Citizenship by descent, again, is different. It is not an immigration pathway. It does not confer membership in Canada on someone new. It recognizes citizenship that already exists from birth, through a Canadian parent who has a real connection to Canada either because they were born here or because they have met the statutory test of physical presence in Canada.

Introducing additional requirements, such as language proficiency, knowledge testing or security screening, for Canadians who are citizens at birth would blur the line between immigration and citizenship by descent. It would impose a process meant for newcomers—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The interpreters are again saying that there is a telephone ringing near a microphone.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member.

Perhaps the member could hand her phone back a couple of rows or put it on—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It is just that I am looking at my time, Mr. Speaker. It is hard for me to know my timing. I will put it on my chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member. The Chair will indicate the two-minute mark.

I will invite the member for Davenport to resume her comments.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, introducing additional requirements, such as language proficiency, knowledge testing or security screening, for Canadians who are citizens at birth would blur the line between immigration and citizenship by descent. It would impose a process meant for newcomers on people whose citizenship is already recognized in law.

We do not ask Canadians born in this country to pass tests to retain their citizenship, nor do we impose these kinds of tests now on Canadians who are born abroad. Extending such tests to those born or adopted abroad beyond the first generation would create distinctions between Canadians based solely on their place of birth. Extending such tests only to adults would create distinctions based on age. Canada cannot have different classes of citizens. Bill C-3 maintains the proper separation between immigration and citizenship law. It ensures that citizenship at birth, whether by place or by parentage, remains clear, consistent and secure.

I want to reassure Canadians that Bill C-3 already includes strong safeguards to uphold both the integrity of citizenship and the security of our country. Citizenship by descent will not operate on the honour system. The burden of proof rests squarely on the Canadian parent, who must provide evidence of their 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before their child’s birth or adoption. Documents such as educational transcripts, pay stubs and leases will be reviewed carefully by officers, who may request additional information when needed. If a parent cannot demonstrate the required physical presence, their child born or adopted abroad will not be Canadian.

All of Canada’s existing integrity measures continue to apply as well. Passport controls, law enforcement co-operation, prosecution for extraterritorial offences and citizenship revocation in cases of fraud remain essential tools to protect the safety of Canadians and the trust they place in our citizenship system.

I am running out of time, so I am just going to go to my conclusion.

I will just say that Bill C-3 represents a thoughtful and balanced step forward in Canada’s citizenship laws. There is broad, cross-party agreement on the need to remedy the status of remaining lost Canadians, and this bill delivers that solution. It also modernizes how citizenship by descent is applied, preserving the connection between generations of Canadians while ensuring that our laws remain clear, practical and consistent.

I would ask that my hon. colleagues on the other side of this House kindly consider voting in favour.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to, perhaps, pick the hon. member's brain a little about Bill C-3. It is an interesting thing that the government brought this forward. I remember that during the campaign, the Prime Minister talked about how we were going to build projects at lightning speed, we were going to have to change some legislation and we were going to do all these great things in Canada.

Then there is Bill C-3, the third piece of legislation the Liberals brought forward. This whole thing was not even mentioned in the Liberal platform. I am just wondering why Bill C-3 is such an important thing for the Liberal government when we have a whole bunch of other things to do.

Why was this put forward now?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question. In December 2023, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, we had a judge who declared section 3(3)(a) and section 3(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act, key provisions limiting the passing of citizenship by descent to the first generation, to be of no force or effect.

There were three main constitutional violations that were found, and the courts gave our government a certain period of time to address that matter. We had no choice but to introduce legislation to address these constitutional violations. We have been granted a number of extensions. The last extension we have is November 20. That is why we are anxious to pass the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the proposed amendments sought to ensure that adults living abroad who are descendants of Canadian citizens and who wish to obtain citizenship would be required to know either French or English. The Liberals rejected that amendment.

Why are they against making a knowledge of French or English a condition of citizenship?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to spell this out in my 10 minutes of speaking. We treat Canadians differently than we do newcomers to our country. If I am born here as a Canadian, I am not tested as to whether I speak a certain level of French or a certain level of English in order to be Canadian. It is the same requirement that we are applying to Canadians of descent.

That is the reason.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to amplify the fact that it is really important the legislation pass before November 20, and when I say “pass”, it also has to go through the Senate. It has to receive royal assent. It is absolutely critical. Otherwise, if it does not pass, it puts into question the whole birthright issue of acquiring citizenship.

Would my hon. colleague not agree that collectively, as a House, we need to push hard to get the bill passed, so that ultimately it can get royal assent?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague. We have to deal with some of these issues when we find that our laws are not constitutional. I do think it is a priority for us to make sure we handle them as expeditiously as possible. There are a lot of items that are going to be before the House. I know everybody is looking forward to budget 2025 being introduced today. I think that as soon as we can get very clear pieces of legislation like this passed as quickly as possible, we can then move to other business of interest to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that in Bill C-3, after the Liberals rejected the amendments that were passed at committee across party lines, the bar for citizenship has been lowered.

I would like to ask the hon. member, very candidly, a very simple yes-or-no question. Does she believe citizenship of this country should be easier for people to access?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the member's question.

We have a bill that is very strong before the House. I think it meets the requirements of the constitutional test that have been raised by the Ontario Superior Court judge. I think we put forward an excellent piece of legislation.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak again in the House about this issue. Bill C-3 has been before the House a number of times already, so here we are talking about it again.

One big reason that we are talking about this comes back to the fact that the immigration system has been messed up by the Liberals over the last 10 years. In the bill, Bill C-3, in particular, we are talking about the value of citizenship. The bill would actually devalue citizenship. I want to chat this morning about that and how we are struggling with the way that the immigration system has been broken by the Liberal government. I remind people here, as we are all aware, that we are going to be seeing a budget later today, which will also give out the immigration-levels plan. We are all very curious to see whether there is any hope of restoring faith in our immigration system. I guess we will see that later today, potentially.

Bill C-3 all started because there was a lower-court ruling that the existing second-generation limit was not proper. The core problem is that the current Liberal government chose not to appeal that ruling and instead just accepted the ruling as it was. It really reflects, in my view, something we have seen many times from the government, which is that rather than actually putting forth legislation and exerting Parliament's influence and power in this country to make laws and make the laws people want, the government tends to rely on what the courts say: What the courts say, they will just accept. That is what happened here. A lower court made a ruling. I did not agree with it, and the federal government had every right to appeal that ruling, clarify it and try to get something that was more in line with what Canadians want.

We see that all the time; for example, we see it with Bill C-12, which is also before the House right now. The government has had warnings that the powers it is putting in Bill C-12 would be likely to be challenged constitutionally and are likely to fail, yet the government does not want to promote legislation that would be good and ultimately pass. Instead, the Liberals are throwing it to the courts and letting the courts tell them what to do. That is completely wrong.

What we, as a committee, attempted to do was to clean this up a bit. Bill C-3 is really about chain migration. It is about people not born in Canada getting citizenship and having children who are not born in Canada, never even living in Canada but having a very loose connection to Canada, and then passing on that citizenship to generation after generation after generation. We tweaked it a bit and tried to make it better, and that is what came back to the House. That was defeated by the NDP and the Liberal government, the NDP-Liberal coalition that still seems to be alive and well. Now we are back to the original text of the bill, which in my view is not good. The reason I do not think it is good is that in the bill that we are debating today, the original text of Bill C-3, we would hand out citizenship and lower the value of citizenship. We would create a situation of chain migration.

We would not ensure that people who attain citizenship through this method can speak one of the languages and are not criminals, which are basic things. The Liberals have said that this is not about that; it is about automatically getting citizenship. The reality is that what the Liberals have proposed has a condition, which is that people have to have spent 1,095 days in Canada as a parent before the birth of the child. There is a condition there, so it is not automatic citizenship; they are not deemed to be a citizen automatically. If a parent not born in Canada has a child not born in Canada, that child would not automatically be a citizen under the new legislation. There is a condition there, which is that it has to be at least 1,095 days. What we proposed was to tighten those conditions even further to make it 1,095 days, which is three years, within a five-year period. That would show a substantial connection to Canada. If someone has spent three out of five years in Canada, that is a substantial connection. We also want to make sure that an older person coming into the country speaks one of the two languages, is not a criminal and understands what it means to be Canadian. These are not unreasonable things; they are just further conditions to what the Liberal government has already proposed.

The other thing that I find quite telling is that we proposed and passed at committee, with the help of the Bloc, the requirement for the government to report to Parliament the number of citizens created by this method. Of course the government refused to do that. The Liberals are not at all into transparency. They do not want anything that is done by them to be known by Canadians. As a result, when this amended bill came back to the House, the government, with the help of the NDP, undid those changes.

Therefore, here we are with devalued citizenship again, with citizens of convenience. These are people who do not live in Canada but realize that, through a loophole, they can actually claim citizenship, because their parents spent a random 1,095 days in Canada. These are going to create future problems for future governments, for future ministers and for the people of Canada in the future. The bill would further make sure that Canada's immigration system remains a joke.

I neglected to mention that I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

That leads me to our broken immigration system. We have a broken system in Canada. I know the Liberals do not like to talk about Canada's being broken, because it just reveals everything they have done to our country in the last 10 years. However, by any objective measure at all, Canada's immigration system is a mess. In fact, it has become a bit of a joke in the world, and it is an embarrassment, to be frank.

The asylum system is one good example. We had this infamous tweet that has been mentioned many times, by Justin Trudeau; it said, “#WelcomeToCanada”. Of course, that started an avalanche of people coming into our country, wanting to get into our country through Roxham Road. That is a good example, in which they were not using normal processes and not using the same system that every other newcomer to our country has followed. By the way, the people whom I talked to who are the most upset about this system are the actual newcomers who used the system the way it was intended to be used, who waited the time they had to wait and filled out the paperwork that they had to fill out, as opposed to those who came into our country through a backdoor system.

Of course, the government, in its infinite wisdom, not only endorsed this method but built infrastructure and instructed the police to welcome people. It is such a strange thing, to say, “Sorry, you cannot cross here, but welcome to Canada” and help them carry their bags in. It was ridiculous. Ultimately, that is part of our broken system.

The other thing I wanted to highlight is what is called our humanitarian and compassionate category. Certainly, it is important for us to focus newcomers in our country on skills and requirements that we have in our country, so the newcomers who come here are able not only to work and succeed but actually to add great value to our country. That has been the history of immigration in Canada for years and years. That is not happening right now.

However, there is one category that we should always try to do, and that is to help people when we can. We can only help so much, but we should still be doing that. There have been cases with Ukrainians, for example, or with Hong Kongers who have been invited to come to our country. They are now here, but the government is not providing a way for them to actually become citizens.

It is really quite ridiculous, so we end up with wait times, and we can go and see it on the website. It is hard to believe, but it is true. It actually says 10-plus years of wait time for some of these categories. In the briefing notes that were given to the immigration minister when she became minister in the spring, it said, in some cases, over 50 years, which is absolutely ridiculous. It just further proves how broken our system is.

That brings me to today, which is budget day. We are going to hear about the levels plan, which tells how many people the government hopes and intends to let into this country. One thing I want to point out is that we have asked numerous times, and the government is unable to provide a number of people who would become citizens through the legislation. They defer the question. They do not seem to know, which does not give me much confidence that they actually know what they are doing. They have a lot of people working for them, as we know. There are hundreds of thousands of people working for the government, yet they cannot figure out how many people this would have an impact on.

One thing I want to note is that, in the last year's levels plan, it showed that our non-permanent, temporary resident population was going to come down to 5% in 2026, so I am very curious to see how that number is reflected today. Are we going to hit the 5% number for 2026? I would remind the government that 2026 is a couple of months from now. I think we are well over 7% now, so I would say the plans made a year ago are probably not going to happen, if I were a gambling man. I am just curious about what we are going to see from that. I am also very curious about how we are going to see spending come in at a “generational” level, as the government likes to say. To me, that is generational debt. We are giving generational debt to our children.

The system is broken. The bill would devalue the value of citizenship. It would create a chain migration system that I believe is wrong. I would encourage people in the House to vote against this. This is not something that would help our country, and the government could have done a far better job creating legislation that would stand up to the courts, that would protect Canadians and that would restore and protect the value of citizenship.

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

Madam Speaker, shortly, I will be able to provide a lot of details in terms of the content of the bill. However, I want to ask a question specifically with respect to temporary workers. We have the leader of the Conservative Party saying he is going to get rid of the temporary worker program. He is saying we should not be renewing temporary workers.

I just heard the member across the way comment on people who have come from Ukraine. Does the member not realize that the tens of thousands of people here from Ukraine are here with work permits? These need to be extended. If they are not extended, the people are obligated to leave.

Does the member believe the government should not listen to his leader and should allow for an extension of work permits for people from Ukraine who have those permits?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is so much to talk about in that question. I will talk about the Ukrainian people, and I would frame it a certain way.

Right now, we can imagine that the member opposite had a temporary permit to work in Canada and was worried about the fact that it was going to expire in, let us say, two months. The government is not very good at renewing permits. Anyone who has worked in the system knows this. Basically, the government is telling these people they can be here because they have a temporary permit, but they have to trust the government to get the permit renewed.

It does not happen in a timely manner. These people are living with stress. There needs to be a better solution than just throwing them into Canada to fend for themselves, without giving them the proper documentation. This is the problem with the government. There is a lack of ability to create a system that actually works for the people who are here and that benefits them, as well as all of Canada.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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?

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

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

That is not true.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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”.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. What causes disruption always translates into not being parliamentary.

It did cause disruption, and I accept that the hon. member substituted the words with “inhale” and “exhale”.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in which he talked about the complex immigration cases that are handled in constituency offices.

Since Granby, in my riding, is a welcoming place, this issue keeps city staff very busy. I want to acknowledge them and thank them for their hard work. What we are asking for is a reform, a review of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is is very archaic and not very humane. That is what people are saying. It needs to be re-examined.

This is my question. The amendments we proposed were aimed at ensuring that there is an annual report to Parliament so that we can see the statistics, the number of people affected and the cost involved. It is said that this bill could affect 150,000 people, but no one knows the numbers. It is therefore important that there be an annual report to Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals continue to disrespect other parliamentarians. That is very clear.

They rejected all of the committee's recommendations and they are not respecting the democratic process. I agree with what my colleague said in her question.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is definitely legislation that, in the riding of Waterloo, has garnered some fruitful conversation. There are examples constituents have shared with me of hard-working, tax-paying Canadians, who often speak both official languages. In one case in my office, the parents worked for an international company abroad. They were born abroad but had been in Canada for decades. Then the wife went to a conference abroad and was not able to travel because she was pregnant. There was a risk of causing damage to her unborn child, so she ended up delivering her baby abroad prior to returning to Canada. That child does not have Canadian citizenship. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

Also, we are trying to grow our economy, with more international companies helping more global citizens. Is this something we might need to consider, as Canadians might be working and contributing to Canada while perhaps having to be abroad to contribute in meaningful ways?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member opposite has had an opportunity to read the amendments, but clearly this issue was addressed at committee. The Conservatives put forth some very meaningful amendments that would have addressed the case she mentioned of the constituent in her riding. Unfortunately, she and the rest of her colleagues in the Liberal Party voted those amendments down.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury.

Being a Canadian should mean something. Citizenship is not merely a passport or an identifier. It should mean pride, belonging and responsibility, but Bill C-3 risks turning Canadian citizenship into little more than a slogan and a check box, and in doing so, it cheapens the value of Canadian citizenship. When we start treating citizenship like a formality instead of the privilege that it is, we weaken the pride and unity that make our country strong. This bill cheapens what it truly means to be Canadian.

Canadian citizenship is more than a passport. It is a promise, a bond of loyalty and shared values. It is a commitment to the nation in which one lives. It means saying yes to the social contract that binds us.

As citizens, we contribute to the society in which we live. We contribute in exchange for rights and privileges. These rights and privileges have been fought for, died over and earned over hundreds of years. Citizenship is about taking an active role in our towns, cities and neighbourhoods, helping one another, building community and taking pride in this incredible country we call home. This bill would turn that privilege of citizenship into a mere piece of paper.

Under Bill C-3, some people living outside of Canada could automatically become Canadian citizens even if they have never set foot here, if they were born or adopted abroad and if their parents spent only about three years in Canada, just enough to meet the bare minimum requirement of 1,095 days that Bill C-3 sets out. This requirement does not even have to be consecutive days spent here.

The individual would not need to know our culture and may never even visit Canada, yet they would receive the same rights and privileges as someone who was born and raised here, or someone who chose to immigrate to Canada lawfully and build their life here. There would be no application process, no citizenship test and no background or security check. A person born with few ties to Canada would be granted full privileges, like those contributing.

A consequence of this may begin to arise in Canada's health care system. Already as it stands today, over 6.5 million Canadians are without a family doctor. Wait times in hospitals have skyrocketed. There are over 80,000 foreign-trained medical professionals in this country who are not working in health care. Canada is paying more into health care today than ever before and outcomes continue to worsen. In 2024, the median wait time for health care was 30 weeks, the longest wait times ever recorded in this country.

We have also had record population increases over the past 10 years. This is not a coincidence. Adding more people to any system that has not grown to keep up will result in worse outcomes, be it in health care, housing or societal cohesion.

Imagine a Canada where citizens who have never set foot on Canadian soil come into this country and begin receiving health care. They benefit from a system that working Canadians have contributed their hard-earned dollars to. This would only further the strain and demand we are already seeing in a health care system that is barely afloat.

Bill C-3 would give out citizenship automatically, with no screening for criminal history, no review for national security and no check for any real connection to Canada. At a time when many countries are working to keep their citizenship processes strong and secure, the Liberal government is lowering the bar.

Under Bill C-3, a person could live here on occasion, spend most of their life abroad and have a child overseas, and that child would still become a Canadian citizen automatically, without any review and without any ties to this country. That cheapens what it means to be Canadian.

For generations, becoming a citizen has meant something real. It has meant putting down roots, working hard, learning our history and contributing to our communities. It has meant earning the right call ourselves Canadian and being proud of it. However, the bill would open the door to citizens of convenience, people who can enjoy the benefits of being Canadian without sharing in the responsibilities that come with it.

This is part of a large pattern. After 10 years of the Liberal government, Canada's immigration system is broken. It is not the fault of newcomers who were promised a better life, but it is the fault of a government that has brought people into Canada under false pretenses, mismanaged our immigration programs, failed to plan for housing and ignored the strain on health care and social services.

The Conservatives support restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and ensuring that adopted children are treated equally, but the bill would go far beyond that. The Conservatives tried to fix these problems in committee. We proposed common-sense amendments that would have protected the values of Canadian citizenship. We asked that parents passing on citizenship by descent or adoption show a real residency in Canada for consecutive years, just as any naturalized citizen must do. We proposed language and knowledge requirements so that new citizens by descent understood Canada's history, laws and responsibilities. We required security screening for adults so that anyone gaining citizenship would be vetted and would pose no threat to national safety. We also called for the minister to report annually to Parliament on how many automatic citizenships are granted abroad and to disclose any cases where security screening was waived.

These were reasonable, balanced and responsible changes. They would have restored integrity while still addressing the unfair treatment of lost Canadians.

Due to the hard work of Conservatives at committee, with the help of our colleagues in the Bloc, these amendments were successfully carried, but just yesterday, the government caved to the radical NDP and rolled back these common-sense amendments, once again proving that they do not value what it means to be Canadian and that the bill is nothing more than a vote-buying ploy.

The government says that it wants fairness, yet it refuses to protect the value of Canadian citizenship. The Minister of Immigration has an opportunity to fulfill her promise to help lost Canadians while ensuring citizenship is not given to those with no real connection to Canada.

This is about fairness, but it is also about integrity. It is not fair to the millions of immigrants who came here, learned our language, passed their citizenship test, paid taxes and built lives here to see others receive the same citizenship automatically from abroad. That creates a two-tiered system where some earn their place and others inherit it with no effort.

For decades, immigrants came to Canada under harsh conditions. Many came with nothing and worked to earn their place in Canada. They came with barely any money let alone the privilege of citizenship.

We can fix this. The Conservatives believe citizenship should be based on loyalty, service and contribution, not on loopholes and paperwork. We can restore pride in Canadian citizenship and give newcomers a system that is strong, fair and consistent. However, Bill C-3 would not strengthen citizenship; it would weaken it. It would trade commitment for convenience and a genuine connection for technical calculation. Canadians deserve better.

We must reject the watering down of our citizenship and the broken immigration system the Liberal government caused over the past 10 years. We must return to a society where our values are championed, not spat on.

Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law, where everyone has the fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association; where every citizen has the right to vote; where every citizen has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada; where everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person; and where every individual is equal before and under the law.

I came here to this House to defend these principles, and I along—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member is way over time.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives are actually saying no to grandchildren. They are saying no to individuals who are Canadians, who live in Canada, and saying that their grandchildren should not be considered Canadians. That is what they are saying no to. I wonder if the member truly believes that is fair given the ruling of the superior court of Ontario.

When we talk about the amendments, as the Conservatives often do, we need to know there are 169 Liberal MPs. When we combine the Bloc and Conservative members, there are 166. The majority of the House agrees with the government with respect to grandchildren. I wonder if the member might want to reconsider his position on the bill itself.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, a decade of the Liberals has harmed the reputation of Canadian citizenship, either because of the neglect and mismanagement of the Canadian immigration system or because of the policies that have weakened the value of Canadian citizenship.

Canada is one of the only countries in the world that allows descendants of visitors and temporary residents born on Canada's soil to automatically become citizens. With over three million temporary residents and a half a million undocumented persons now living in Canada, continuing to allow temporary residents' descendants to automatically claim citizenship will have a deep impact on Canada's immigration system, housing, jobs and social services.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is not saying is that the government took amendments that were duly adopted in committee meetings and threw them out.

Right now, my colleague is talking about the government's majority in the House. That is one thing. However, committees serve a purpose. Otherwise, we would not have them. We would vote on bills here in the House and that would be it.

Perhaps my Conservative colleague can comment on the fact that the government behaved very inappropriately by completely rejecting amendments that were duly adopted in meetings of a committee of the House of Commons, which must serve a purpose. What does my colleague think about that?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and the Bloc for the support we received at committee.

Immigrants are not to blame for wanting better lives; it is the Liberals' fault for breaking our system and allowing people into Canada too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up.

Only Conservatives will restore the value of Canadian citizenship and the immigration consensus the Liberals broke by fixing our broken immigration system and setting clear rules.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful to the hon. member for his great speech on the topic. I wonder if he has any other examples of how the immigration system has been wrecked. I know that for as long as I have been here, we have been concerned about the Roxham Road crossing. I wonder if he has any other examples he would like to share with us.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives believe that Canadian citizenship matters. It is more than a designation on an ID card or a passport to travel the world; it is a shared responsibility that takes every single one of us to adhere to. There once was a time when being Canadian meant something.

It is appropriate that we are entering Veterans' Week, a week when we remember our heroes who fought and died so that we can stand here today. By watering down our citizenship and reducing it to a check box, the Liberal government takes for granted their sacrifices by erasing what they fought and died for.

May we never forget their sacrifices.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are saying that the government is granting Canadian citizenship too freely to people who do not have sufficient ties to Canada. However, this bill requires a parent to reside in the country for at least three years before they can pass on their citizenship to a child born abroad. That is a clear and real requirement.

Can my colleague explain why he feels this requirement, which many experts found to be reasonable, does not respond to his concerns regarding a substantial connection to Canada?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, with over three million temporary residents and half a million undocumented persons now living in Canada, continuing to allow temporary residents' descendants to automatically claim citizenship will have a deep impact on Canada's immigration system, housing, jobs and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for York—Durham.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I was really enjoying the debate; it is lots of fun. I want to thank my colleague who split his time with me, my friend from Red Deer, for his excellent speech. I am happy to rise again and talk about the bill. I spoke to it at second reading, and I am happy to offer my thoughts again at third reading, although I have some suspicion about what actually happened. I have been in this place a long time, and the fact that we are not debating the bill the committee actually adopted at third reading is interesting, to say the least.

I rise today to deal with Bill C-3, which claims to redress the lost Canadians issue but, of course, goes far beyond that goal and scope in its intent. Lost Canadians are those with strong ties to Canada who have been denied the privilege of being conferred our citizenship because of complexities or outdated provisions in our laws. Conservatives believe those who have been arbitrarily or unfairly denied this privilege should have this error corrected, yet the bill that is currently before Parliament remains a bad one, notwithstanding that issue.

Instead of merely remediating the most egregious cases of lost citizenship, the Liberals took the liberty of creating a system that would completely gut and undervalue the value of Canadian citizenship. While most immigrants to Canada must work hard to acquire their citizenship, something they are immensely proud of, the bill would create a system in which citizenship is not awarded in a merit-based manner. It introduces an extremely weak substantial connection test to gain citizenship.

An individual's parents need only to spend 1,095 nonconsecutive days in Canada at any point to gain citizenship. No criminal background check would be required. This was something Conservatives proposed as an amendment at committee and had passed, but, suspiciously, it has now been removed from the bill at third reading. This is the point I would like to expand on, and it should not be ignored.

In the last few days, I received a response to an Order Paper question in which I asked how many non-Canadians are incarcerated in federal prisons in Canada. That number would not even include the ones incarcerated in provincial institutions, which are for people serving sentences of up to two years less a day. It showed that there are nearly 1,000 non-Canadians in federal institutions in Canada.

If one is serving a federal sentence, the average sentence for a federal penitentiary is 1,787 days. When those 1,000 people get out, they will have now met the arbitrary 1,095 nonconsecutive days test. They can go anywhere they want in the world after they are released from a federal prison in Canada, and, because they have spent that time in Canada, any children they might have could now be conferred Canadian citizenship. Should the children of these people who have spent time in a prison who might be the—

[An hon. member]

No, because they are not Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to the member for Winnipeg North that it is very simple: If they are the children of Canadian citizens, but not citizens themselves, and are in a federal prison, they can confer citizenship to the second generation, and that is exactly the point the legislation has.

Essentially, Bill C-3 would allow foreign-born individuals who have never lived in Canada to bypass the immigration system and gain citizenship just because a parent spent a few months in Canada years or even decades ago. It would create a plethora of citizens born outside the country with no meaningful connection to Canada whatsoever. That is what grandchildren are.

That is why our party worked collaboratively at committee to improve the bill. Our amendments would have solved the lost Canadians issue but limit potential abuses. These were common-sense proposals, such as requiring knowledge of Canada's official languages and undergoing a security assessment. However, the government has teamed up with the NDP to gut these changes. This is happening despite the NDP not even having a seat at the committee table. Not only is this underhanded, but it also violates the spirit of the democratic process we have in this place.

They even removed our changes that would allow Canadians working overseas in the service of our government to pass on their citizenship. This goes to show that we may have a new Prime Minister, but this is the same old Liberal government.

It should be noted that Bill C-3 is the successor to Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament. The government has basically tried to re-pass the same failed policies as the last government.

This whole debacle arose because the last prime minister refused to challenge a 2009 court decision in Ontario that struck down the previous Harper-era provisions that protected our citizenship system from abuses. Conservatives have always understood that citizenship has an inherent value. After all, a Canadian passport is one of the most valued in the world, offering visa-free travel to 184 countries.

For years, Canadian citizenship was the envy of the world, attracting the best newcomers wishing to better their lives, but years of mismanagement under the Liberal government has harmed the reputation of our citizenship. Where does this value lie? Aristotle defined this concept of citizenship roughly as the right “to rule and be ruled in turn”, being closely associated with the ideas of civic participation in the polis. His ideas of citizenship were still primitive compared with today.

Rome would expand on these ideas by defining the rights of citizens as being tied to certain responsibilities, namely the protection of the state through military service. Later, Rousseau and Locke expanded on these ideas to include a more robust system of rights and responsibilities, often referred to as the social contract that defines the obligations that both citizen and state have with each other. While the franchise of citizens has expanded since then, no one disputes these ancient ideas that rights cannot exist without responsibilities.

How does this tie into the current debate on Bill C-3 and on citizenship? Citizenship is the culmination of these ideas. It is the pinnacle of proof of belonging to a certain group of people, these being people who share the same rights and obligations; who have similar underlying values, and in Canada this includes things like the rule of law, a respect for democracy and a tolerance for those with differing views or opinions; and who share similar historical, linguistic and cultural links to each other.

In our system, those who wish to attain this level of belonging are diligent and work hard to attain it. This is not given to them; they earn it. They are the best fits for our system, including their participation in our economic and social fabric. That is why it is disheartening to see the current government say our citizenship basically has no value. If we do not treat our citizenship carefully, why would any other country do so? Will other countries retaliate and reduce our visa-free access?

Citizenship is not a commodity. It should not be bought, and it certainly should not be given away cheaply by way of Bill C-3. To hold Canadian citizenship is to belong to one of the greatest nations on the planet, and that should not be forgotten.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lack of understanding of the legislation.

The member indicated he made an inquiry and found out there are 1,000 people who are not Canadians in our jails. He says that, somehow, their grandchildren are not going to be able to come to Canada, unless this legislation passes. If someone is a permanent resident who goes to jail for two or more years, they cannot become a Canadian citizen. In order for the whole process to kick in, a person has to be rooted to a Canadian citizen.

Would the member, at the very least, acknowledge that the information he has provided is actually wrong?

At the end of the day, you have to be careful because the way you expressed it, many would say, comes across as being anti-immigrant.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Winnipeg North is an experienced member. He knows better than to speak directly to my hon. colleague rather than through you. He was accusing you of doing something, which I am sure you will be the first to admit you were not actually doing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member was somewhat speaking through me, but I take the hon. member's point.

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

Madam Speaker, I think my “friend”, and I use that term sparingly, the member for Winnipeg North, missed the point.

If someone who is not a citizen has their child here, and that person commits a crime, they may go to a federal prison, and I have just explained that the average sentence length is 1,787 days. They may then leave prison and go back to another country, where they were originally from or their parents might have been originally from.

Millions upon millions of Canadians have moved here from elsewhere, my wife included. I am not anti-immigrant at all. Thanks for the accusation, though.

Notwithstanding that, if that person's parents are Canadian citizens or have those rights, that means the grandchildren of those parents, through this person who has been incarcerated in Canada, meet that threshold and will now be entitled to Canadian citizenship. I think that is ridiculous.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was just wondering if my hon. colleague has any other examples. The last one was great. I was wondering if he has any other examples of how the Liberals have cheapened Canadian citizenship over the last 10 years.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Alberta for bringing this up. I have been here a long time. I was here in 2006, when the Lebanon crisis broke out. We found that there were not only a few hundred or a few thousand but some 60,000 Canadians living abroad in just that particular case, which I think inspired some of the conversations about whether we have citizens of convenience.

I mentioned in my speech that our passport has visa-free access in over 184 countries around the world. There are a lot of people who want to have access to Canadian privileges, want to have access to the Canadian passport and want to have access to Canadian programs and services but might not be contributing much, when it comes to the prosperity of our nation, for example, and I think a 1,095-day tour of Canada is not substantial enough in any way, shape or form.

It makes me wonder if perhaps this is being done to advance the interests of just one particular party in this House, instead of advancing the interests of our country writ large.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a debate that constituents in the riding of Waterloo have been actively participating in, and there is definitely a range of views and perspectives. I hear the member's comments in regard to having a commitment to advancing the prosperity of the country and being a great Canadian.

In the riding of Waterloo, I have a couple of circumstances or situations. One includes a Canadian whose parents were working abroad. This individual has lived her entire life in Canada; speaks both official languages; is a contributing, hard-working, taxpaying citizen; and was born abroad. She went abroad to a conference and was not able to come home because it was suggested, because she was pregnant, that she not travel. She ended up having her baby abroad, and that child is not entitled to Canadian citizenship.

In circumstances such as this, where the family is very committed to Canada and speaks both official languages, does the member agree that the child should have Canadian citizenship?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the case my friend from Waterloo has brought up, but I will simply suggest this: I have been an MP for 20 years. I have had numerous cases of people who have been in this country paying taxes for years and years, and their children, born even in this country, and they speak the language, are being sent back to the country of origin of their parents. However, that is a first-generation decision, and Conservatives always stood up for that first-generation commitment. It is the second-generation one that is most problematic.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara South.

The Liberals drafted flawed legislation in Bill C-3. It was too loose in the requirements that would confer Canadian citizenship. The Conservatives and the Bloc members therefore worked together to tighten up Bill C-3. Our proposed amendments were guardrails that would prevent second-order abuses. These amendments were voted on and approved at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. However, the NDP members and the Liberals united yesterday to undo the positive changes that we so carefully crafted at committee and that would harmonize the pathways to citizenship across descent and naturalization. As such, Conservatives will not be able to support this legislation.

Today I stand baffled at the complete disregard for the committee process that was shown yesterday. As such, I want to hold my Liberal colleagues accountable to the promises they made on June 19 about sending Bill C-3 to committee and receiving amendments. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said the following: “I very much look forward to members discussing and debating this and receiving any amendments or constructive advice.” In response to the minister, I would define our amendments as constructive. We built upon what was presented in Bill C-3 and merely added guardrails.

The deputy House leader of the government said, “we are happy to bring in amendments that make sense, in committee, and work together with all parties”. In response to the deputy government House leader, I want to emphasize that the amendments were crafted by both Bloc members and Conservatives. If by “all parties”, the member is referring to recognized parties, it seems that everyone was accounted for in these amendments.

The member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre stated, “That is exactly what the committee process is for. We know that bills go to committee and get amended. If Conservative members feel this does not allow for a substantial connection, then let us have that conversation at committee. That is exactly what we should do.”

The member further stated, “Of course, all bills need improvement. Let us get it to committee. Let us work fast at committee, make the improvements necessary, bring it back for third reading and pass it.”

In response to the member, all I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree. We worked through the committee process to have our important conversations and to improve the bill. We crafted the proposed amendments with care, yet the New Democrats and Liberals have shown, through their actions, that they do not respect the committee process.

Finally, not to belabour these points, please let me end with a question by the hon. member of Parliament for Waterloo: “Does the member agree that the right way to provide suggestions and amendments to the legislation would be at committee?” In response to the hon. member, my reply is yes, amendments are to be made at committee. I must ask, then, why have we undone all of these carefully crafted committee amendments?

At this juncture with Bill C-3, I do not even see why there is a Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Why did I spend several afternoons at the committee working with my Conservative and Bloc colleagues to improve this legislation when all of this work done by recognized opposition parties can be undone by a party that the Canadian voters chose to punish with only seven seats?

With the remaining time, I want to briefly give an overview of the common-sense amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc members passed in committee. With every amendment, let us examine whether, in any way, they would infringe on a group we know as lost Canadians.

First, we proposed amending the three-year presence in Canada, to be achieved within a five-year time frame. This is not a high bar. Certainly any lost Canadian would want to spent 36 months in Canada within a 60-month time frame. That is only a high bar for Canadians of convenience who want Canada to remain open to them as an insurance policy if geopolitical affairs go south in their current country of residence.

Second, we proposed adding requirements around language proficiencies, citizenship knowledge and security checks. That is not a high bar. Certainly, any lost Canadian should already know how to speak one of our official languages, should already know about the duties of citizenship and should already have a clean criminal record. It is a high bar only for Canadians of convenience who struggle to speak our official languages well and who struggle to understand the values of our nation. These are the people who want to enjoy the privileges of a Canadian passport without the duties of contribution to our society.

Third, we proposed adding two reporting requirements for the Minister of Immigration, where the first would be on the number of citizenships granted by the enactment of Bill C-3, and the second would be on the number of security screening exemptions. Again, that is not a high bar. Certainly, every lost Canadian would like a living record of their ranks' regaining citizenship. Certainly lost Canadians would want the Canadian public to be made aware of exemptions made for people in their ranks with criminal records. This is a high bar only for Liberals who do not want a living record of all Canadians of convenience to whom they granted citizenship.

If Canada as a whole were a municipal community, the Conservative and Bloc members would be councillors who merely wish to put speed bumps on our residential roads. Functionally, all our proposed amendments were speed bumps that would have made it harder to drive 80 kilometres per hour in a residential zone. Lost Canadians already know how to drive in Canadian residential zones; they would simply endure a few speed bumps and be on their merry way to regaining their driver’s licence, which is a good metaphor for Canadian citizenship.

Canadians of convenience want to drive at highway speeds in our residential zones and then head immediately back to where they came from, with our official driver’s licence in hand. The speed bumps do not bother someone who intends to live as a resident here in our Canadian community; they are a bother only for tourists who want to zip in and out of Canada, acquiring our status symbols without contributing to the society that gave those symbols status.

Conservatives will not support the current Bill C-3, which the old NDP-Liberal coalition stripped of the amendments so carefully crafted in committee. We Conservatives stand with all proud Canadians and lost Canadians against the mutilated Bill C-3 that the NDP-Liberal coalition cut up to serve Canadians of convenience.

When the next geopolitical flashpoint emerges, how much will the NDP-Liberal coalition take from the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers to fund a vacation bailout for Canadians of convenience?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly remind the member that we are here at this moment debating this bill because the bill the Harper government brought into law was found by the courts to be unconstitutional under the charter. They have given the House until November 20 to pass a law to remedy that circumstance. As a result of the illegal law, there are many Canadians who are disenfranchised.

For example, a very good friend of mine was born of two Canadian parents who were working abroad. She was born outside Canada. Of course, she returned to Canada, is a Canadian citizen, lived here her whole life, got her education and now is working in France, where she had two children of her own. She is unable to pass Canadian citizenship to them. Under the law, even though she is a Canadian citizen, she could not, because she was born outside the country. These are the real-life circumstances we are trying to remedy with the proposed law.

Does the member oppose ensuring that Canadians remain Canadians by making sure their children also get Canadian citizenship?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me remind the Liberal government again that when the law was struck down by the Ontario courts, the Liberal government had every opportunity and all the time it needed to repeal that decision, but it never did. It has done nothing about it. Now that the deadline is coming, the government just all a the sudden wakes up and says it needs to do this. It is rushing this through without due consideration for all Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague addressed the rather worrisome issue of these lost Canadians. We are aware that there is a court ruling, and the amendments we proposed respond to the court's ruling. We want to determine what constitutes a substantial connection to Canada. As a matter of fact, we copied the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad so that there would be one set of rules for everyone.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, we truly worked together and considered the value of Canadian citizenship and what it means for Canadians. The amendments we put together would have addressed, as the member mentioned, the naturalization process. People should have a clean criminal record, understand Canadian culture and, most importantly, speak English or French.

That is not too much to ask, so we do not understand why the Liberal government and the NDP are trying to rip this away from us so the bill would create another class of Canadian citizens who know nothing about Canada and who do not necessarily value Canadian citizenship.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Markham—Unionville is the embodiment of what the Conservatives have been trying to say, which is that to be a Canadian citizen requires, or should require, a commitment to and an investment in Canada.

Can the member, as someone who was not born in Canada, speak to the value of Canadian citizenship and what that should mean for people?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, truly we are talking about the values of being a Canadian citizen. My grandfather came to Canada when he was 15 years old, but because of the law of the day, my grandmother could not come here. My mother was born in China, and later I was born in Hong Kong. Therefore, by definition, I am a lost Canadian.

However, we went through the proper immigration channels, the residency requirements and all the various citizenship tests. That proves to me that it is valuable to go through the process so people can integrate into Canadian society and be positive role models for the country.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is fortuitous, or even perhaps unfortunate, that I may be the last speaker on the Conservative side to speak to the legislation before the House. I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will have another question for me, because he always does, and I appreciate his interjections.

I am a new member of Parliament. I came from the business community. I am probably, I think, the oldest rookie in the House of Commons, and I am perplexed by the process the legislation came through. I spoke at second reading, and the parliamentary secretary asked me a pointed question after my speech, which was why we were holding the bill up at second reading and why we would not let the Liberals take it to committee, where we could make concrete and substantial amendments to it. He said that committee was where we could make a better bill, and he asked why we were filibustering on the floor of the House of Commons.

I wish we were still at second reading, because the committee members, including the member for Markham—Unionville, spent hours and hours talking about substantial and reasonable amendments to the legislation. With the support of our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, we were successful in making proposals to make the bill a much better piece of legislation.

The original legislation was fundamentally bad, and now that the amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc managed to get through at committee have been reversed, as my colleague said, what a waste of time this has been. We have wasted weeks and weeks on the legislation, only to come back today to where we started. I am very disappointed.

The government members asked us at the beginning of the session to collaborate and co-operate with them. They asked us to give them things they could work with to help them build better legislation. We did that, and we see today at third reading that it was all for naught.

I want to tell a bit of story. Three of my grandparents were born in the U.K., so my father and, I think, a couple of my uncles were born in the U.K. My father was entitled to citizenship, and his was the last generation that would have automatically been entitled to citizenship in the U.K.

Canada and the U.K. share a sovereign. Canada is a parliamentary democracy in the British tradition. My roots go back to England and Wales, yet I am not entitled to British citizenship. In addition to that, I did my graduate work in the U.K., in England; I studied there. That did not entitle me to U.K. citizenship.

Under this legislation, those two factors would provide me with citizenship, if I were outside Canada studying for three or four years, or spending 1,095 days in the country. Countries across the world are limiting these opportunities. The legislation is nothing more than chain migration. It is the postnational mentality, where there is no more value to citizenship. It does not seem that the government puts a highly regarded value on citizenship now.

Most of the Liberals who have been talking today have been giving examples about first and second generations. The legislation would provide access in perpetuity to Canadian citizenship. Someone would not need to speak the language, go through a security check or have a substantial knowledge of Canada. They would not go through the normal citizenship process that people who want to come here through normal citizenship applications do.

I do not think it is unreasonable, in the amendments we proposed to the legislation, to suggest that pegging a value on citizenship should be based on having a substantial connection to Canada, not just 1,095 days or a five-year period, or just that someone went to school here to get a degree or spent the summers at somebody's cottage. In the bill, this is exactly what would give someone the access to Canadian citizenship, and that, to me, is wrong.

It is also not unreasonable to suggest that people who want to get citizenship but who are multiple generations down the line should go through a security and background check. We want people with good records, not criminal records, to be part of our country. We also believe it is not unreasonable for these people to speak one of our two official languages, and that, in the legislation, would also not have to be the case.

There have been several iterations of this legislation from previous parliaments. Those iterations also failed on the floor of the House of Commons before the last election, but this new piece of legislation today, which has now gone back to its original form, is severely flawed. The Conservatives would have supported a bill that had the substantial and reasonable amendments that we proposed, with the support of our Bloc colleagues. They would have made this bill a lot better.

We are now faced with a budget coming in a few hours that will provide a generational impact, as noted by the government. It is a “generational” budget, but it is also going to be a generational budget of debt. With this legislation, Bill C-3, the generational impact of access to citizenship would undermine the value of that citizenship and saddle other generations with the debt we are imposing on them today. That is unfair.

We on this side of the House believe the value of Canadian citizenship should mean something more than just having a loose connection to this country. It would undermine the fabric and history of our country. When we see the flag beside the Speaker, we need to understand the roots of it, what it means to be a Canadian and what it means to understand the history of our country and the education, knowledge, language and security of that flag as a meaningful representation of citizenship.

I am disappointed that this legislation is now reverting back to a very bad piece of legislation simply because the government feels it has been pressed into doing something by the end of November. The government had the option to appeal the decision of the superior court; it did not. There were several layers of judicial applications that could have been proceeded with that would have given the government more time. Early in this session of Parliament, we had an opportunity to get the bill right. Despite the arbitrary deadline the government believes is there, there were options to have it extended again.

In conclusion, I am saddened to say as a new member of Parliament, having gone through this whole process and understanding the legislative process, that I believed the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was being sincere when he said to me that the bill should go to committee, where we can make solid amendments to benefit it and make it better. We did that, and we are back to where we are now. That process seems to me to have been a waste of time. For that, I am sorry to see we are back to where we started.

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

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would say to the new member that there are plenty of opportunities at the committee stage for amendments to pass, but we have to look at the circumstances surrounding the amendments that were being proposed and supported by two entities of the House. It is the government that is ultimately responsible for getting legislation through.

The essence of this legislation is to enable a grandparent, as a Canadian, to see a grandchild ultimately receive Canadian citizenship. That is the principle, the essence, of the legislation. I do not believe the Conservatives as a whole really appreciate the value of having a birthright for that grandchild.

Does the member not recognize the true value of a grandchild having birthright citizenship? The Ontario Superior Court, by the way, happens to agree.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment from the parliamentary secretary because that is exactly the problem with this legislation. We are not talking about the grandchild. We are talking about the grandchild's children and their children, who may have never had a substantial connection to Canada and who will have access to Canadian citizenship.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Yes, they will.

Madam Speaker, we need a substantial connection test, one that does not mean some distant relative three or four generations down the road will automatically be entitled to Canadian citizenship. This is someone who does not speak the language, perhaps has a criminal record and has not gone through a security check.

None of that makes sense to me. For that reason, we will vote against this legislation.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. In committee, he and I worked hard, responsibly and collaboratively on amending the bill.

The party in power tells us every day how important committee work is. It tells us that we have to work together to conduct thorough studies or to examine bills. That is exactly what we did at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We proposed amendments and the majority of committee members voted in favour of those amendments. Today, we are in a situation where the Liberals are not respecting the work of the committee.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on this. What does this say about the Liberals' view of democratic institutions and the parliamentary tools we have at our disposal to do our job as parliamentarians?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. We worked well together on the committee, and I always appreciated that we had an opportunity to talk substantially about the amendments we wanted to bring forward to make this piece of legislation better.

I said earlier in my speech that my education as a new MP was unfortunate. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said to bring amendments to the committee; that is when we will make the bill better. Well, we did that. We made amendments and made the legislation better. Perhaps we would have had an opportunity to make it the law of the land, but all that time was wasted. Now we are back to where we started, and we will not vote in favour of the legislation as a result.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have a bill before us, Bill C-14, that takes into account a number of policies on bail reform. Included in Bill C-14 are parts of Bill S-233, or my private member's bill, Bill C-321, which would have made it an aggravating factor in sentencing if the victim of violence was a firefighter, health care worker or first responder.

Would it not send a message to the firefighters on the Hill, the nurses watching and the first responders who put their uniforms on every day to serve our country and community to pass unanimously, at all levels, Bill S-233 today?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the answer is, yes, it makes sense. My son is a firefighter, and I am grateful for his contribution to our community every day. Let us get that piece of legislation through the House.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I know that all members appreciate the sacrifice that firefighters, first responders and nurses have—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but there is no unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.

It is unbelievable that I am here before the House, just before question period and before the budget is tabled, to once again talk about Bill C‑3. I would remind members that we also discussed Bill S‑245 and Bill C‑71 in a previous Parliament. I have probably given 25 speeches on exactly this issue, which is discussed in Bill C‑3 in particular. As my Conservative colleague just said, we did a thorough and responsible job in committee. We did our job, we listened to the experts and we even heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer in committee.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have a point of order from the member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions behind the scenes, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Apparently there is not.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my speech.

I do not even need my notes to talk about this bill anymore. As I was saying, we worked hard in committee. We did our job as parliamentarians. Our work was thorough and amendments were adopted by the majority of committee members. Those amendments made this bill better than it was when it was referred to the committee.

The party currently in power has formed a minority government, yet it is behaving like a majority government. The government keeps telling us that it received a strong mandate from the people. It received a minority mandate. Perhaps it should be aware of that. Today the government is presenting the budget, and it should be doubly aware of that fact.

I assume that I will continue my speech after question period, since I have not finished yet.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), be read the third time and passed.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the speech I am giving today is probably the most anticipated one of the day.

As I was saying, I must have spoken to this bill or another version of it at least 45 times. For that reason, I really have no need of notes. There was Bill S-245 in the previous Parliament and Bill C-71, which was almost identical to Bill C-3.

That said, when we invited experts to appear before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when it was studying Bill C-3, the Parliamentary Budget Officer came and set the record straight. Basically, when we were presented with such a bill, we were told that it would affect about 800 to 1,000 people at most. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that, depending on the algorithms he used, it could affect between 115,000 and 300,000 people. That is a huge difference compared to what we were told before.

We did our job. We brought in experts and tried to understand how this bill should move forward, given the injustices done to the people known as “lost Canadians”. At the same time, we must do our work rigorously. When changes are made to the Citizenship Act like this, we need to be serious, and this is coming from a Quebec separatist. We were serious, we brought in experts and we worked very hard in committee. All members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration from all parties contributed to that effort. The Conservatives came up with amendments that were very well drafted. The majority of committee members voted in favour of these amendments.

Today, we find ourselves in a situation where the House has blatantly used a parliamentary tool, one that is not used very often, to undo everything that was done in committee. Every day, I hear the Liberals say that committee work is important, that amendments need to be proposed and that the parties will work together. That is exactly what we did. We worked together and we proposed amendments. We then voted on them, and the majority of committee members voted in favour of these amendments, but the procedure that was used in the House completely wiped out the work done in committee.

I find that hard to accept. Once again, a Bloc Québécois member is standing up to defend Canadian institutions. It is quite remarkable that we have reached this point. Once again, we respect democratic institutions. These democratic institutions exist to serve the people we represent. If, unfortunately, the government is once again undermining the work being done in these important forums, particularly the one I am talking about, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, what message does that send to the public? How can the public have confidence in democratic institutions if all the work being done is undermined?

By the way, committee work is not free. It costs the public money to run committees. We are talking about astronomical costs to run committee meetings. We did the work, but in the end, we find out that our work will not be respected.

The amendments that were proposed were very interesting. That is why we supported them. Take, for example, the idea of 1,095 days to establish a substantial connection with Canada, which the government decided to include in the bill as a way to demonstrate that a person has strong ties to Canada. The individual must have spent 1,095 days in Canada over an unspecified period of time. Those 1,095 days are not a new concept; they come from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Under that act, if a permanent resident wants to become a naturalized Canadian citizen, they must have spent 1,095 days in Canada over a five-year period. That is the variable. The government is using the 1,095 days in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a reference, but it is removing one of the two variables, namely the five-year period. In Bill C-3, the 1,095 days could occur over an indefinite period. A person could be 65 years old, have spent 1,095 days in the country intermittently, not over a specific period, and still be considered to have a substantial connection to Canada.

We felt that this did not make sense. The Conservatives proposed an amendment to add the five-year period as a variable and we supported it.

The astounding thing is that today, with the help of independent MPs here in the House, the Liberals undid what we accomplished in committee, even though it made a lot of sense. Our work was based on provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We also thought people should have to be proficient in one of the two official languages in order to obtain Canadian citizenship. I am well aware that there is a former prime minister out there who wanted a postnational state, but the idea that people do not need to speak either English or French fluently to become Canadian citizens is quite bizarre. It is just odd. The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois worked very hard together to, again, take the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a reference and slip this criterion into Bill C‑3. These amendments were adopted in committee in a very reasonable and responsible manner. Once again, the government has undone what we accomplished. It is unacceptable to me when the government does not respect an institution such as a parliamentary committee, particularly when it lectures us day after day about the need to work together, to work in committee. It tells us that it will listen to the experts and encourages us to propose amendments.

Bill C‑3 was one of the first bills introduced in this Parliament. As a matter of fact, it was the third one, hence the bill number. It is one of the first bills to come up for third reading in the House of Commons. However, everything that was done before has been gutted. There is no respect for the work of the committee. This is unacceptable. It tells us a bit about the Liberals' view of democracy and democratic institutions on Parliament Hill. That is very unfortunate. I believe this could set a dangerous precedent and lead us down a slippery slope. What is the point of committee work if this is the outcome?

We would have voted in favour of this bill if the government and independent members had respected the committee's work, but the outcome shows that nothing happened. We have a bill before us, but it is as if no work was done in the committee. All the work that was done has been thrown out. The Bloc Québecois will not be able to vote in favour of this bill in its present form.

I presume the government has struck a deal with the NDP, but this is an unfortunate situation. I think it is appalling. It shows a lack of respect, not for parliamentarians, and not only for democratic institutions, but for the people we represent, who expect us to work in democratic institutions the right way. Above all, they expect us to do our work the way these institutions were designed to function.

That concludes what is probably my 44th speech on this topic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to be sensitive to the argument the member put forward. When we think of the standing committee, a total of 169 Liberal MPs and a combined total of 166 Bloc members and Conservatives are represented at the committee. The committee ultimately made changes, but it did not get support from the New Democrat members. If it had gotten their support, the Liberals would have outnumbered.

It is a good thing to see the work that standing committees do. If members work with the government, they can often get amendments passed. We have seen numerous amendments pass previously.

I am wondering if the member could provide his support for the democratic principle that the largest number of MPs should ultimately prevail, in particular on this legislation.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears. If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a tractor. “If” can be used to preface any statement. The member opposite has just told me that if there had been New Democratic members on the committee, things might have been different. Yes, but if there had been 78 Bloc Québécois members from Quebec, things might also have been different. If Maxime Bernier had gotten 54 members elected to the House, things might also have been different.

The member is saying that if the NDP were a recognized party, things might have been different. Is that the way we do politics here? He is saying that if there had been more New Democratic members, things would turned out differently.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean would comment on what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader told us at second reading. He said to bring the legislation to committee and bring forward legislative changes and amendments that will make the bill better.

How many weeks did we spend on it? We spent two months debating the bill, refining it and bringing forward rational, reasonable and acceptable amendments, yet as the parliamentary secretary said, we did not get the NDP onside. The NDP does not sit in committee. It did not make a presentation. We have no idea what its point of view was. We now come back here, and the government has thrown out all that work and is saying we are going back to the beginning.

I wonder how the hon. member feels about that.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That is an excellent question, Mr. Speaker

I would remind members that that same colleague just told us that had there been more members, it would have been in the committee. He has a fascinating way of looking at politics. I would also remind members that that same colleague told us to bring amendments at second reading, that the committee would work on the bill, and that we would reach consensus on this piece of legislation.

That same colleague is now telling us to throw out all the work done at committee as well as all the amendments adopted by the majority of committee members because, as he put it, had there been more members from another party, things would not have turned out this way. It is such sheer madness that one can only laugh.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech and for all the work he has been doing.

My understanding is that the final outcome will be that someone may have been a resident of Canada for five years, but over a very long period spanning many decades, and that their descendants will automatically gain Canadian citizenship without undergoing a security screening or passing a language and citizenship test.

Why does my colleague think the Liberals and New Democrats would want to have such lax requirements when admitting new citizens? Why are they also refusing to tell us the number of new citizens involved?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from the member for La Pointe‑de‑l'Île. First, the bill only calls for three years, not five. It was our idea to put that over a five-year period.

One part of the member's question is very relevant and very important. One of the amendments that was passed in committee was that the government report annually to Parliament on the number of people who become citizens through Bill C‑3. Again, we were only asking for accountability. I think this government is rattled because they have to be accountable to Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to suspend until 4 p.m., at which time we will hear the much-anticipated budget being presented by the Minister of Finance.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Sitting Suspended

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The House is suspended.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 3:39 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 4 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 2, concerning the budget presentation.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), be read the third time and passed.

Citizenship Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:19 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C‑3.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #47

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes.