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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There are 11 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-3.

The Chair has received submissions asking it to select Motions Nos. 1 and 5, standing in the name of the member for Vancouver East, on the grounds that they could not be presented in committee.

The Chair notes that the member did have the opportunity to submit amendments for the committee's consideration as per the committee's routine motion adopted on June 17, 2025. For this reason, Motions Nos. 1 and 5 will not be selected.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendments at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 11 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 11 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 1, be amended:

(a) by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 3 with the following:

“1,095 days before the person’s birth; or”

(b) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 4 with the following:

“1,095 days before the person’s birth.”

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

moved:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 1, be amended by:

(a) replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 3 with the following:

1,095 days before the person’s birth; or

(b) replacing line 28 on page 4 to line 6 on page 5 with the following:

1,095 days before the person’s birth.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-3, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting line 30 on page 4 to line 6 on page 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended:

(a) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 7 with the following:

“at least 1,095 days before the person’s adoption; or”

(b) by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 7 with the following:

“at least 1,095 days before the person’s adoption.”

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

moved:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by:

(a) replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 7 with the following:

at least 1,095 days before the person's adoption; or

(b) by replacing line 38 on page 7 to line 15 on page 8 with the following:

at least 1,095 days before the person’s adoption.

(c) ...

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting line 40 on page 7 to line 15 on page 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 5.1.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-3, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 23 on page 9 with the following:

“6 Paragraph 27(1)‍(j.‍1) of the Act is amended by”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 6.1.

Mr. Speaker, my motions to amend Bill C-3 would restore the bill to its original form. They would rectify the Conservatives' punitive and unconstitutional law that stripped the children of Canadian parents the right to pass on Canadian citizenship to second-generation born-abroad children, separating families, rendering some stateless and creating two classes of Canadians more than a decade ago. They respond to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling that Canada's citizenship laws are unconstitutional. They would restore justice for lost Canadian families.

Canadians who live, work or study abroad and their second-generation born-abroad children should never be treated as lesser citizens.

When Bill C-3 went before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, to say I was disappointed in the amendments from the Conservatives, which were supported by the Bloc, is an understatement. Frankly, I do not understand why the Bloc changed its position. When I was at that committee, I worked closely with the Bloc member. We were in agreement on making these changes. After the election, something happened. I do not know exactly what happened, but the Bloc flipped and supported the Conservative motions.

It is with dismay that I stand here today to move these amendments and make these statements. Many lost Canadian family members contacted me right after the committee, expressing frustration, anger and dismay. I share their views. I have had much to say on this topic in the last 10 years. I have carried this file with me for years. Finally bringing it to the stage where we can ensure that Canada's citizenship laws are charter-compliant was extremely important, and seeing it dismantled the way it was at committee was shocking.

At this point, I think it would be most appropriate to put on the record the words of a lost Canadian family in reaction to the Conservative and Bloc amendments to Bill C-3 at committee. This letter is from a woman named Majda Dabaghi, who represents the sentiments of many lost Canadian families. I have received so many letters and calls from lost Canadian family members about this. Let me put their words on the public record.

Referring to the Conservative and the Bloc members, she said:

Overall, their interventions were framed around immigration anxieties rather than citizenship rights....

A few points stand out:

First, Members of Parliament continue to conflate immigration and citizenship.

When she says “Members of Parliament”, I want to be clear that she is referring to the Conservative and Bloc members of the committee. She continued:

Bill C-3 is not about granting citizenship to newcomers with tenuous ties to Canada; it is about restoring equal rights to Canadians who already have a genuine, demonstrable connection to their country. Canadians who live, study, or work abroad contribute meaningfully to Canada’s global presence, economy, and values. They should be celebrated, not excluded.

Second, the rhetoric around so-called “Canadians of convenience” has been weaponized to justify exclusionary amendments. That narrative is deeply harmful and, frankly, inaccurate. At one point, [the member for Saskatoon West] referred to people like me as “visitors to Canada.” I found that remark profoundly insulting. It deepens the wounds inflicted by the First Generation Rule—a policy that already fractured the identity and sense of belonging of thousands of Canadians abroad.

I am a Canadian. I was raised in Ottawa and Whistler; I have lived and worked in Canada for most of my life. My Canadian identity is not conditional on geography, nor should my children’s right to citizenship depend on political games. The notion that I am somehow less Canadian because I have lived internationally is offensive and contrary to the Charter’s principles of equality and mobility.

The shift away from the cumulative 1,095-day connection test to a consecutive-day requirement is unworkable, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. It disregards the modern realities of family, work, and study, and it directly violates Section 6 of the Charter, which guarantees the right of all Canadian citizens to move, leave, and re-enter Canada freely.

These amendments do not only harm Canadians abroad—they harm all Canadians. They erode the very principle of equal citizenship by creating a hierarchy of rights based on geography and every Canadian’s mobility rights are weakened.

What is most frustrating is the politicking behind these changes. The amendments are being used as a proxy battle over immigration fears rather than a good-faith debate on citizenship equality. The lack of preparation from some MPs and the eagerness to grandstand rather than legislate responsibly are infuriating.

I might add that at committee, officials noted that with these amendments, it is possible that a new class of lost Canadians could be created.

Those are the sentiments of a lost Canadian family. It is a reflection of many lost Canadian families, including those who have been harmed, those who took the government to court and those who were told when they were pregnant and expecting a child during COVID that they were somehow supposed to leave their families, travel back to Canada, find a place to stay and find a new health care team to deliver their child. That is what they were supposed to do during COVID just so they could ensure that their child would have citizenship. How does that make sense? It does not.

Our laws have been discriminatory for more than a decade, ever since the Conservatives, under the Harper regime, stripped lost Canadians of their rights to pass on citizenship to second-generation born-abroad children.

I want to be clear that in bringing these motions forward, there is no deal with the Liberal government. There is no quid pro quo. I do not have any lost Canadian family myself, but I am doing this because it is the right thing to do. It is an important thing to do. It is the Canadian thing to do.

We should all be treated equally. No one should be treated as a second-class citizen. The citizenship rights of those who are lucky enough to be born with citizenship should be celebrated and honoured. There is no question about that. Of course, we should not abuse it. However, we should not penalize the people who travel, work or fall in love abroad, and God forbid they should have children abroad. That is what these amendments would do. Restoring those rights per the court ruling and bringing the bill back to its original form are the right things to do.

I hope we can support these amendments so that we can all stand tall and proud that Canada's citizenship laws will finally be charter-compliant. Let us not conflate immigrants' rights to earn their citizenship with that of Canadians' birthright. Let us not fuel the current atmosphere of anti-immigrant and anti-migrant sentiment that is washing over us from south of the border. We are better than that. Let us not fall prey to that. Conservatives may not believe that, because that is who they are. Maybe that is what it is, but I am not like them and I refuse to let it happen.

I hope all members of this House will support these amendments so that we can stand tall and proud, with our Canadian values intact.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion that the member has expressed on the issue. I know it has been a very important issue for her personally for a good length of time.

We know there have been individuals like Mr. Chapman and many others who have really been fighting for the cause, advocating that we recognize the value of our citizenship and the people who should have citizenship, and they are pleased to see that we now have this bill before us. It is, at the least, a very significant step forward in recognizing and giving citizenship to many people who should have had it long ago.

Could the member provide her thoughts on how important it is that we finally get to a stage where people would be getting their citizenship?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been carrying this file for more than a decade.

As I have said, I do not have lost Canadians within my own family unit. My children were born in Canada. I am an immigrant, so I am a first-generation born-abroad individual, but my children were born here, so they are not impacted in any shape or form. However, that does not matter.

What matters is that there are people who are lost Canadians in this context. It is critically important to pass this legislation back to its original form, based on the amendments made to Senate Bill S-245 that I motivated. It is also based on the government bill later introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-71.

Here we are. It is morally and legally the right thing to do, and that is why we have to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor says that the amendments are designed to ostracize immigrants and that they are anti-immigration.

I would therefore like to ask her the following question. Suppose I go abroad and my children are born abroad, if they decide to stay abroad and then have children of their own, will this law also apply to them, or does it only apply to immigrants?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would apply to second-generation born-abroad children. That is what this is about.

The amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc supported treat second-generation born-abroad children as though they were immigrants. That is the issue.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for her absolutely brilliant motions today.

One of the concerns I have had is that since the new government took power, I continue to see members' trying to pass bills in the House that would violate human rights and would actually violate the Constitution.

Why are we participating in this dangerous, slippery slope by not upholding our Constitution and the international conventions that Canada has signed on to?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for seconding my motion and for her ongoing advocacy for basic human rights, not just for Canadians but for everyone across the globe. Her relentless, untiring tackling of and fighting for basic human rights for all people is who we are as Canadians.

By the way, the law on lost Canadians' citizenship birthright has been deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court. In fact, the government has been forced to bring this legislation forward. It should have been done years ago, without the court's making the ruling, but the government has not done it, and the court has ruled that the law is unconstitutional.

We have to rectify this. Again, I ask all members of the House to support my amendments.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could the member speak a little more about how important it is for Canadians to be able to travel without putting their offsprings' citizenship at risk?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is important because Canadians are global citizens. We travel. Canada is a global country, so when people travel, study abroad and work abroad, they should not be penalized for it. That is why we need to fix the legislation right now.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I have the honour of speaking today in support of Bill C‑3 and to highlight how it strengthens the legislative framework of Canadian citizenship. Following second reading, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration completed its review of the bill and heard from numerous witnesses.

Many wanted to know exactly how many people will be affected by the coming into force of this legislation. What is the exact number of Canadians who have been stripped of their citizenship? The term “lost Canadians” has generally been used to describe people who have lost or never had Canadian citizenship due to certain obsolete provisions of citizenship legislation.

The majority of cases of Canadians who lost their citizenship have been resolved through amendments to the Citizenship Act in 2009 and 2015. These changes have enabled certain individuals to regain or obtain Canadian citizenship if they had lost it. However, a small group of people and their descendants remain excluded. These are the people that will mainly be affected by Bill C‑3.

The bill also applies to people who are not typically considered lost Canadians, such as those who were born or adopted abroad by Canadian parents who are citizens by descent and who are affected by the first-generation limit, which was implemented in 2009.

One of the main reasons why we do not know the exact number of lost Canadians or citizens by descent is that the government has not kept a registry of births abroad since the enactment of the Citizenship Act in 1977. There is no way of knowing about these births unless the parent contacts Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC.

A Canadian parent can request a citizenship certificate for their child who is born abroad. When a child is adopted abroad, the parent can apply for direct citizenship. This process enables the government to assess eligibility for citizenship on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the child's citizenship is based on that of the parent, not on their place of birth. It is not necessary to register the birth abroad or to declare the parents' country of residence to establish a person's Canadian citizenship.

In short, birth registration is typically the responsibility of the country where the birth takes place. IRCC is only informed of citizenship by descent cases when an application for proof of Canadian citizenship is filed, either by the person concerned or by one of their parents.

To better anticipate future applications, it may be useful to look at the number of past cases. The legislative amendments made in 2009 and 2015, specifically addressing the situation of lost Canadians, allowed more than 20,000 people to contact IRCC to obtain proof of citizenship after their status was corrected. The vast majority of cases have been resolved as a result of these legislative changes.

We know that the department has not seen a significant increase in applications for proof of citizenship as a result of these two sets of legislative amendments. Some citizens lost their status for reasons related to the old rules for retaining citizenship. Typically, an average of 35 to 40 applications a year for restoring citizenship through a discretionary measure are received. However, these have been on a downward trend, and we expect that to continue.

IRCC received about 4,200 applications between January 2024 and July 2025 from people affected by the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent who qualify for the interim measure. These figures suggest that the remaining number of lost Canadians and their descendants is relatively small, probably in the tens of thousands. They are expected to gradually apply as they become aware of their rights.

I would now like to outline the objectives of Bill C‑3. If passed, this bill would automatically grant citizenship to anyone born abroad to a Canadian parent before the legislation's coming into force. It would also apply to people who are currently unable to obtain citizenship by descent because of the first-generation limit, including the remaining lost Canadians and their descendants.

Once the law comes into force, any child born outside the country to a Canadian parent who was themselves born outside the country will be considered a Canadian citizen from birth if the parent in question can prove a substantial connection to Canada, that is, a cumulative physical presence of three years in the country before the child is born.

We cannot predict how many children will be born abroad after this legislation passes. However, as long as the Canadian parent who was born outside the country was physically present in Canada for at least three years before the child's birth, they can pass their citizenship on to the child.

Some members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration raised important questions about foreign adoptions. As much as possible, the government wants to continue to treat children adopted abroad and those born abroad in the same way, while following clear rules regarding how parents pass on their citizenship.

Any child adopted abroad by a Canadian parent before the new law came into effect would now be eligible for direct citizenship, even if they had previously been excluded due to the first-generation limit on Canadian citizenship by descent. The committee analyzed these measures carefully. At this stage, the bill remains the most equitable and practical solution.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that key provisions of the first-generation limit are unconstitutional. It has suspended its decision until November 20, 2025, to give Parliament time to create a new framework. If the bill is not passed by that date, Canadian citizenship could be granted indefinitely to future generations born outside Canada, with no time limit and no requirement for a meaningful connection to the country.

However, certain groups will continue to be disadvantaged by the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent. Many of them will not become citizens or will not have access to citizenship because the order will be imposed before Bill C-3 comes into force. This includes people adopted abroad by Canadian parents beyond the first generation, lost Canadians under section 8 who lost their citizenship status as a result of the age 28 rule, and certain individuals born abroad prior to April 1, 1949.

This scenario would create legal uncertainties for families and complicate the application of the Citizenship Act. That is why it is crucial that we pass Bill C‑3 quickly.

I hope these explanations will provide some clarity around Bill C‑3 and pave the way for it to pass so that the remaining lost Canadians can have their citizenship restored, so that access to citizenship by descent beyond the first generation is expanded in a clear and inclusive manner, and so that we avoid creating more lost Canadians in the future.

Passing this bill will allow Canada to take a decisive step forward with respect to lost Canadians and to strengthen the integrity of our citizenship framework for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Liberals are about to remove an amendment the committee made to include a language requirement in the bill.

Language is a unifier in Canada, and the Conservatives worked with the Bloc Québécois to ensure that somebody who would be receiving citizenship through this chain migration bill would at least have to pass a language test that is similar to the one for somebody who is receiving citizenship through naturalization.

Why would the Liberals table an amendment that would create a two-tiered citizenship class, one that denigrates Canada's language rights as they relate to citizenship acquisition?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her great question.

Canada has two official languages, and we want to protect them. However, this is about fixing a problem caused by a framework. We need to give these citizens the right to their citizenship through legislation.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Terrebonne, for her eloquence and, of course, for her presentation. My question concerns the substantial connection test for members of the second generation.

Why is this test necessary for members of the second generation born after the legislation comes into force, but not for those born before it comes into force?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, moving forward, this legislation will ensure that the opportunity to pass on citizenship is subject to reasonable limits.

Prescriptive application of the substantial connection test is meant to strike a balance between setting reasonable limits on citizenship by descent, in order to preserve the right to and privilege of Canadian citizenship, and ensuring the flexibility and inclusivity needed to address the cases of individuals previously excluded from citizenship by descent based on the first-generation limit.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the amendments that were voted on in committee, there is this notion of righting wrongs as well as setting guidelines and ensuring that people who become Canadians continue to maintain a genuine connection to their new country.

Can my colleague discuss another key amendment, which provides for the publication of an annual report to determine the impact of this legislation?

My colleague referred to a few thousand people but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there would be up to 150,000 new citizens within the first five years. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to understand the impact of the laws that we pass.

Why is my colleague moving an amendment today that ultimately goes against transparency and accountability?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, this bill is about transparency. The majority of cases of lost Canadians were resolved through legislative amendments. Between 2019 and 2023, we received an average of 48,000 applications for certificates and proof of citizenship. About 80% of these applications came from people born abroad. We will follow up on those applications for citizenship.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this was court ordered. Why is it dangerous for parliamentarians to not only not uphold court orders, but also do it in a manner that violates our Constitution, which is, in fact, the rule of law?

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Bill C‑3 was introduced in response to this request from the court and seeks to create a framework in which IRCC will be able to proceed in a fair and inclusive manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a mess. What we are dealing with today is an abject mess. I have to explain to the people who might be watching what has happened and what we are dealing with today.

The Liberals had a court ruling. There was a court ruling at a lower court that said the first-generation limit of citizenship by descent could go on indefinitely. The previous Conservative government had put in place a rule that said that, if somebody is going to pass down their citizenship to a child born abroad, they could only do that for one generation, and that somebody who obtains citizenship by descent has to have a substantive connection to Canada. This was done in the late aughts to prevent something called citizenship of convenience, as we saw cases in the 2000s where Canada was called on to evacuate people who had never paid taxes and who had Canadian citizenship, but who had never really been in Canada. They had acquired citizenship through descent. When Canada evacuated some of these people, most of them just went back. That is why the first-generation limit was put in place. Rather than challenge the court ruling, the Liberals said, “Yeah, okay, we'll just agree with the court”.

I cannot believe this, but one of my colleagues asked why the government would challenge a court ruling. Why would we do that? It is because Parliament is supreme. In fact, the correct answer from the government on that, which I cannot believe members did not know, is that, per section 91(25) of the Constitution Act, Parliament has the authority to amend the Citizenship Act to impose new restrictions on how citizenship is acquired in our country.

Why does Parliament have the right to do that? Why does Parliament have the imperative to do that? It is because Canadian citizenship has value. It should not be appointed judges who can do that. It should not be anybody other than duly elected representatives talking about what restrictions we place on how somebody obtains Canadian citizenship. That is why we have the Citizenship Act. There are limits and rules for how people can acquire Canadian citizenship.

About a decade ago, the Liberals came into power. A lot of the far left principles that we see in the NDP espouse something called postnationalism. This is an ideological belief. The former prime minister actually said there is no national identity in Canada. There is no national identity. There is now a minister of national identity in the Liberal Party who said there is not one way to be Canadian. Then the new Prime Minister, during the election campaign, when asked what it means to be Canadian, said it is to be not American.

We are at a juncture in the country right now. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. This should concern all parliamentarians. The social fabric of our country is breaking down because of a decade of what we have seen from federal leaders in this country. It is that concept of postnationalism, where there is no national identity, there is no value to our citizenship and we can just eliminate first-generation rules to allow people to obtain citizenship by descent in a way that is easier than it is for people who have naturalized to this country.

This is why Conservatives worked with the Bloc Québécois to amend this disastrous chain migration bill at committee. Conservatives put forward some very common-sense amendments to try to ensure that people who are obtaining citizenship by descent through this chain migration bill would have to go through the same processes as somebody who is obtaining citizenship through naturalization, so that at the very least, we are not creating a two-tier citizenship acquisition system in this country.

I want to thank my Bloc colleagues for working with us and passing these amendments. The amendments we put forward were very common sense. We sought to harmonize the residency requirements that somebody has to have to obtain citizenship through naturalization with citizenship by descent, so they have to live here at least three out of five years to have the provisions in this bill apply to their descendants. That seems reasonable to me. It is a reasonable amendment.

The second thing Conservatives did was amend the bill to have a language acquisition requirement, the same language acquisition requirement that is there for people who want to obtain citizenship through naturalization. It is the exact wording that is already in the Citizenship Act. We said this is reasonable. Why is it reasonable? It is because language is a unifier, and language is part of our national identity.

There are two official languages in Canada. They are very important to what it means to be Canadian. They are integral and core, especially in Quebec and other parts of the country where there is a whole concept of national identity that is firmly entrenched and attached to language. We made that amendment. It is common sense. It is the same that is already in the Citizenship Act.

We also said maybe somebody should have to take a citizenship test. It is the same requirement of somebody who wants to naturalize to Canada to take a citizenship test. They have to read the citizenship guide and have a basic understanding of what Canada is and what our rules are. Our national identity needs to be rooted in the fact that we all have a duty for not just the privileges associated with citizenship but also the responsibilities. These are things taken right from the citizenship guide. For example, there is a requirement to abandon violent and extreme ideology upon coming to Canada. Anybody who is or wants to be Canadian must abandon violent and extreme ideology. It is right in the citizenship guide. Conservatives amended the legislation to have a citizenship test. This is the same as it is for somebody who wants to obtain citizenship through naturalization.

As my Bloc colleague raised in a question earlier, Conservatives wanted a report to Parliament on how many people have been given citizenship by descent because of the fact that the Liberals did not challenge this ruling. They could have challenged this ruling, but they chose not to. They chose unlimited citizenship by descent with residency requirements that are weaker than what people who naturalize to this country have.

The reason I am so fired up is that I have watched, through a decade of Liberal postnationalism, which they have not just said but have also operationalized, the eroding of our democratic institutions. We have seen their catch-and-release bail policies over the last year and the crime that has wrought on our streets. It is the erosion of the justice system. We have seen the censorship bills they have put in place and the erosion of free speech. While we might not agree on certain types of policy or how to get to certain types of outcomes, if those democratic institutions are eroded through a postnational ideology, and we tell the world that our citizenship does not have value by gutting a common-sense amendment like this, it would further erode the social fabric of our country.

What is the outcome of that? It would erode Canada's pluralism. The only way that pluralism and multiculturalism can exist is through a democracy that has strong respect for the rule of law, for institutions such as freedom of speech and unifying things such as language. Mark my words, the Liberals continuing their far left postnationalism by gutting common-sense amendments on things like language requirements will only further degrade Canada's pluralism.

We are at a moment in history when we have to start restoring the value of Canadian citizenship, not further degrading it. I beg colleagues to ensure the amendments that were passed in a multipartisan way at committee are kept so that we can keep the value of Canadian citizenship and reverse the decade of damage that the far left Liberal postnational ideology has done to the value of Canadian citizenship and our pride in national identity.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that Parliament is supreme and we should, therefore, ignore the ruling of the court. I would suggest to her that, rather, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is supreme, and it is the role of the court to advise parliamentarians when our laws exceed the capacity of the charter.

I would ask the member to please comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals rolled over on the court ruling. They said that Parliament should not have a debate on this. They allowed the first-generation limit to be eliminated by a lower court.

Parliament is supreme. I cited the part of our laws through which we have the right to determine what Canadian citizenship is, and the Liberals took that debate away from us. They had to extend the limit on the court ruling because they had screwed it up so badly that they did not have anything in place to prevent unlimited citizenship by descent. It is preposterous.

If the Liberals think that the court ruling should not be challenged, then why are we here? Why do we not just give everything to the judges? I say no.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, today's debate raises important questions about democracy. What role do judges play and what role do legislators play? The judge said it was discriminatory and told legislators to do their job and determine what the real connection is between a Canadian born abroad and his or her country. A guideline has been proposed, a reasonable limit that mirrors the immigration system. That is the job of legislators. It is not up to judges to decide everything, because otherwise we would have a government of judges, and that is not what we want.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about the state of our parliamentary democracy if everything that is decided in committee is overturned when the report is presented to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot wrap my brain around what is happening. We had members of Parliament stand up in here today and say that we should never, as a Parliament, exercise the authority our constituents have given to us when a court has ruled on something. We have the power to make legislation. We have the power in our charter to overturn court rulings.

The Liberals made a deliberate choice not to challenge legislation that speaks to the value of Canadian citizenship and how something so precious can be applied. They essentially eliminated rules for that. That is bananas. It is antithetical to the principle of parliamentary supremacy.

I am so proud to stand here and say that Canadian citizenship has value and that it is worth having this debate in the House of Commons. I believe there should be a language requirement; I believe there should be security checks, and I believe there should be a citizenship test. Anybody who does not believe this needs to give their head a shake.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for the passion and knowledge she brings to this debate. My question is, why? There is so much value to Canadian citizenship that is recognized around the world. Why does the government want to cheapen it?

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citizenship Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can my colleague shed some light on that for us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing we have not talked about today in this debate is the fact that there may be an additional 150,000 or possibly more citizens. The Liberals really do not know how many there would be.

One problem from an elections point of view is that, according to Elections Canada, these people who would be citizens living outside the country can decide which riding their vote is going to count in. There is no mechanism for Elections Canada to know where they were when they spent their 1,095 days. This problem does not have a solution yet. As we know, some ridings are won by 80 votes or 500 votes, so 150,000 people could be a consideration there.

I wonder if the member has a proposed solution from the Liberal government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely confident in Elections Canada's ability to ensure that we have fair elections in every region of our country. I would like to think that the collective confidence we should have in Elections Canada would allow us to proceed with what Bill C-3 is proposing without concern about any impact it would have on the election, because of some sort of fear factor. I believe that issue can and will be addressed.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite what the government refuses to say, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that this bill should allow 150,000 new people to vote. These are people who do not live here.

We wanted to propose amendments to limit the scope of this bill. Second-generation individuals who do not live here, who live abroad but were born to Canadian parents, are required to have resided in Canada for three years in order to obtain citizenship. We proposed that this requirement be five years instead. This is the same criterion that applies to permanent residents who want to obtain citizenship.

Why is the government refusing to use the same rules that apply to new citizens for people who live abroad?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation requires a substantial connection to Canada with respect to the 1,095 days. That is not necessarily within the five years.

I have had the opportunity to work with literally hundreds if not thousands of individuals who are permanent residents and who contribute immensely to our economy in every significant way that matters. At the end of the day, having that substantial connection to Canada alleviates that particular concern.

With respect to the overall numbers that are out there, just because one can throw a number out does not necessarily mean everyone is going to be flooding in to get their Canadian citizenship. I do not believe we should be denying individuals through a generation, saying that, no, they cannot be identified as Canadians even though they have a substantial connection to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Serious work was done in committee. The Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois proposed some amendments. Now the government is joining forces with the NDP to get rid of all the amendments and all the work done in committee.

I know that a party that does not sit on committees and is not recognized in the House is allowed to propose amendments, but normally, when amendments are brought forward at report stage, they must be amendments on subjects that have not already been discussed.

Why is the House proceeding in this manner when we have worked hard on these issues and discussed them?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would caution the member about diminishing the importance and the sense of equality among members of Parliament who are on the floor of the House. He might not necessarily like it, but there are five political entities inside the House, and all individual members of the House are due equal respect.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to this stage of Bill C-3.

Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable possessions on the face of earth. I know, without a doubt, that no one in this chamber would trade, diminish or relinquish their Canadian citizenship for any price, any prize or any thing. We believe, with good reason, that Canadian citizenship is perhaps the most valuable asset in the world.

The spirits, the legacy and the sacrifice of those who fought to protect the value of Canadian citizenship are with us here today in this chamber as we consider important changes to the processes and pathways to gaining the most valuable asset in the world, becoming Canadian. We have a sacred obligation to respect their ultimate sacrifice for our democracy.

Let me preface this by saying that my citizenship in this country derives from brave people who came here three generations ago from England, Wales and Italy. They came here looking for a better life.

Canada represented, for them, a new frontier, where there was hope, opportunity and a promise that hard work and a commitment to Canada would give them a good life. For me, I owe them everything. I stand here today in this magnificent place of Canadian democracy because of the path and opportunities they gave me as a proud Canadian. While the times were different then, the objectives were the same. They never thought Canadian citizenship was easy. It was hard. They made their way by supporting the ideas of peace, order and good government.

The original text of the bill would have opened the floodgates to people with no serious connection to Canada, either through loose lineage or lived experience here, which was our biggest problem with the legislation. When I was asked to join the citizenship and immigration committee, one of the first pieces of legislation we saw was this bill.

Conservatives support several aspects of this legislation and argued at committee for some changes. We were successful in improving the bill, although questions remain. Will the Liberals recognize the improvements we made to the bill, or will they impose a view that seriously diminishes the value and pathway to becoming a Canadian?

Fundamentally, one big question faces the House at this pivotal time in defining the value of being a Canadian: Is it reasonable for anyone who wants to become Canadian to be required to demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada? I say it is absolutely reasonable, but the Liberals have come up with this idea that foreign-born individuals who have never lived here could gain citizenship just because a parent spent a few months here a few years ago.

Now, I know my Liberal colleagues will say that I am simplifying the scenario, but I know that my immigrant grandparents would be appalled at this concept as a serious option to become a Canadian. This is chain migration without an adequate connection to our country, and it creates a two-tiered system where those who never lived here get the same rights as those who worked hard to earn their Canadian citizenship.

Canadian citizenship should not be inherited as a chattel, an heirloom or a convenient hedge against political or social circumstances elsewhere. Being Canadian takes commitment, not convenience. As one witness said, “There is no benefit derived from having non-contributing citizens living abroad, not paying taxes, but just using a Canadian passport for their convenience and parachuting into Canada when they need assistance.”

Canadian citizenship is not a prize. Canadian citizenship is not a hand-me-down. Canadian citizenship is not an asset to be kept in a safe to be used from time to time. Canadian citizenship is also not a loosely connected generational thread for people who have no understanding of what it means to be Canadian and who do not know the generosity of Canada, the magnificence of Canada, the splendour of our Great Lakes, the majesty of our Rocky Mountains, our linguistic duality and the struggles of building this country across vast distances and impossible terrain.

The most egregious aspects of the original legislation allowed for loosely connected generational individuals to gain citizenship without official language proficiency, security checks against criminal activity or a basic understanding of Canadian history, a test that everyone else seeking citizenship would need to take before being granted the right to enjoy the most valuable asset in the world, which is being a Canadian.

Even the Liberals will grudgingly acknowledge that they screwed up the immigration system over the past 10 years. 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 deeply impact Canada’s immigration system, housing, jobs and social services.

There are parts of the bill that Conservatives clearly support. We support fixing that glitch in the immigration process that resulted in the so-called lost Canadians, who, through an unintended change in citizenship law, were denied automatic and rightful access to citizenship.

My colleagues on the committee and I worked tirelessly over the past months to study Bill C-3, and we proposed reasonable amendments. One of the most significant amendments was on citizenship by descent and citizenship by adoption. Under the changes approved at committee, a person cannot be granted citizenship by descent or adoption if neither of their parents, who are Canadian citizens, had not been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person’s birth. I know that sounds a little complicated, but there it is.

We also passed amendments on language and knowledge. These reinforce the purpose of a Canadian identity and ensure that those who wish to apply for citizenship, either by descent or adoption, have a connection to Canada’s history and one of its official languages. We also passed amendments requiring security checks to ensure Canada is welcoming people who have a good track record, not a criminal one.

Requiring 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada over the course of 5 years, a clear language, knowledge of Canada’s history and proper security screenings with annual checkups by the ministry would ensure that new Canadian citizens are truly prepared to embrace the rights, responsibilities and values of our beautiful nation. These are not burdensome hurdles. They are safeguards that uphold the integrity of our citizenship system.

Niagara South is a border riding. This past week, I had the opportunity to talk to both the immigration and public safety committees, and in the House, about how we manage the flow of goods and people across one of Canada’s busiest borders. The Peace Bridge in Fort Erie sees over $50 billion a year of trade across the arch of that iconic bridge linking Canada to the U.S. We know we have problems with our entire immigration system. My constituents are very much aware of these issues and have told me that citizenship should not be handed out like playing cards.

When I was elected as a Conservative member of Parliament, I made a commitment to the people of Niagara South that I would hold the government to account and ensure common sense would prevail. The amendments made to Bill C-3 represent the values of what it means to be a Canadian and the sacred trust embodied in it. They also make common sense.

I encourage my Liberal colleagues to accept our reasonable changes to the Bill. They reflect careful consideration and illustrate that we can compromise and make legislation better, something the Liberals asked us to do. Well, we have, and now this legislation is before us. I encourage the Liberals to accept our amendments to protect the most valuable asset in the world, which is Canadian citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific example of a foreign diplomat who serves abroad and has a child. That child makes the determination, after a number of years, to stay in another country and starts a family. They are still passionate about Canada, they still travel to Canada, they demonstrated that they do have an interest and meet that 1,095 days, but the parent of that child now has a child, so they have their grandparents living in Canada.

Is the member prepared to say that he does not support foreign affairs and people in the Canadian forces being able to pass citizenship down to their grandchildren?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member paints the narrative as though Canada is somehow discriminating against Canadians. Every nation puts limits on the number of generations that can apply for citizenship. It is not unreasonable to put in a generational limit. Chain migration immigration is not an option that any country supports.

This legislation would provide a pathway in perpetuity for many generations of people who may never have set foot in this country, except that their parents or their grandparents may have spent five years here. I just cannot support that. There have to be limits. Not everyone can just become a Canadian because they want to.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up just what the Liberal government has done to our immigration system. It was globally recognized as likely one of the best economic and immigration systems around the globe for decades. There is one thing I was not really surprised by, but I would be interested in getting the member's feedback on it.

Has he heard from first-generation Canadians and people who have immigrated to Canada who are very frustrated with what the Liberals have done? As the member indicated, they have been basically undercutting the value of Canadian citizenship in our country.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a valuable point. There is nothing more valuable, in my view, than Canadian citizenship. All four of my grandparents immigrated here with nothing to show when they got here, but they worked hard. They built a family and a life, and they owned a home, which is very difficult for immigrants today.

We have to understand that being a Canadian is a special privilege. The process through which people proceed must be a legitimate process, not based on showing up here, being lost in the fabric of Canada and then suddenly being able to obtain citizenship. That is not an option for me, and I think we need to focus more on the suggested amendments to the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate to the members opposite, including government members and the NDP, that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives do not oppose Bill C‑3, quite the contrary. We have shown our support for the bill. However, we did propose amendments to provide a slightly tighter framework for determining whether or not someone is a Canadian citizen when they live outside Canada.

Can my colleague reassure the government that the committee did a thorough job? Should members not take that into account today in this next step in the House of Commons, which is the vote on the bill?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the discussions at committee were comprehensive. We spent a lot of time debating various issues with this legislation, and I am very happy that our colleagues in the Bloc and the Conservatives collaborated to understand some of the issues that were affecting this bill, which had gone through several iterations in the previous Parliament. This legislation effectively died in the last Parliament. It died twice in the last Parliament through different iterations.

This version, with the the amendments that were put forward by the Conservatives and supported by the Bloc, as well as the amendments the Bloc presented that were supported by us, is a good piece of legislation. I would encourage the government to support it.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-3 and the transformative power of Canadian citizenship. At the heart of it, the bill is about Canadians, families, their histories, their sacrifices and their deep and abiding connection to Canada, no matter where their careers or lives may take them.

Since second reading, the immigration committee has completed its review of the bill, heard from many witnesses and brought forward many amendments. As we approach its final passage, I want to highlight why the bill, as drafted, remains the right path forward.

Citizenship is about more than just legal status; it is about belonging to a diverse and welcoming community where shared democratic values bind us together. These values remind us of who we are. They remind us that Canada remains a beacon of light and hope in the world. They remind us that our strength as a nation lies not in uniformity but in our ability to celebrate difference by working together toward a common good, around shared values and shared aspirations.

My parents came to the country because they had little choice. They were lucky that Canada chose them. They came to the country under very difficult circumstances. They would bleed for the country. They would die for the country if that was required of them, because Canada has given them everything. Canada gave them the ability to practise their professions, practise their faith and raise their kids.

With an alignment with values and an alignment in the commitment to community, we take care of our neighbours and believe in the best in all of us. We work together despite our differences, and celebrate those differences, in an era when diversity is looked upon negatively. We look at those differences as an opportunity for strength and use that strength to communicate and connect with the rest of the world and trade with the rest of the world. We find that in our differences, there is remarkable strength and there are opportunities to learn from and about each other. Through that, we can learn about the complicated world in which we live.

My parents taught me from a very young age that citizenship does not just bring rights; it brings responsibilities. That is what we need to be talking about today. We need to talk about ensuring that there is a common understanding of what it means to be a Canadian citizen. It means a commitment to a set of principles and values and to ensuring that, even as migration and mobility are fixtures of modern life, the sense of connectedness to what Canada means is not lost.

Many people who were born in the country, like me, sometimes forget the value of what it means to be a Canadian citizen. Ask anyone who has come to the country and fought for that citizenship, and whose families have fought for that citizenship, what it means.

Where a person is born or how they acquire their citizenship makes them no more or less of a citizen. We all share pride in being Canadian. Those of us who were born here are extremely lucky. It does not mean this value is diminished because of where we were born, whether we were born here or elsewhere.

The modern world takes us to different places. I have had the privilege of living in different countries and studying in different places. I have always come back to this country because it is my home. Others are not so lucky. They end up living in other countries for long periods of time, but their ties to the country and their love for the country do not change.

We have to stop placing a value judgment on what the litmus test is for someone's love and care for and their connectedness to the country by determining that, somehow, birth decides that. There are people born in the country who denigrate Canada every single day. They say the country is broken and they would rather we be part of the United States. There are people who are Canadian and live miles away from this country, and they take such tremendous pride in what this country means and what it stands for.

Our job is to ensure that people who have the right or should have the right to be Canadian citizens through the means articulated by our laws are afforded that opportunity and that those rights are not taken away. Canada already leads the world in so many different areas, particularly in showing the world how successful immigration can work. As some countries' access to immigration is tightened and as the rights to citizenship get tightened, Canada's approach is principled, embraces diversity and ensures the economic prosperity and global ties that make us stronger as a country.

We all know that Canadians live and work abroad, working in the arts and sciences, education, economic development, international development and diplomacy. These citizens maintain deep links to Canada, returning to raise their kids, to work, to study, to care for loved ones and to build community. Ensuring that their children, whether born or adopted abroad, can share in that identity is not just about fairness; it strengthens our country's cohesion and our global reach.

We all know from experiences in our own communities what new Canadians have told us about how important their citizenship is to them, what it means to them, how becoming a citizen has had an impact on them and the ways that we have to continue to safeguard the rights, responsibilities and shared values of citizenship. For those of us from all parties who have attended a citizenship ceremony, we know that it is a moment of deep pride for those who are taking that oath to this country. It is the pride in calling Canada home and the journey that they took to get here. It marks the culmination of years of sacrifice, hard work and perseverance. Often, sacrifices are made not just by the individual but by an entire family, many of whom will never see Canada. It is a moment of great connection to community, opportunity and, indeed, something greater than oneself.

Those of us who have seen the emotional weight of this moment will never forget it. Newcomers, often with their kids by their side, hold their certificates tightly, knowing what it means to them and to their family's future that they will have the security and confidence of being able to be called Canadian. This feeling of pride goes well beyond borders, with people around this world longing for the opportunity to call Canada home. For those fleeing conflict, persecution or hardship, Canadian citizenship represents a new beginning and a beacon of hope to all. It is a privilege that they do not take lightly. The gratitude expressed by new Canadians is profound. We all hear it in our streets and our communities. They speak with pride about the opportunities that Canada has given them when it comes to education and when it comes to building a peaceful life.

These pillars of Canadian society are the cornerstones of a better future, not just for new Canadians but for their children and for future generations. Whether it is through volunteering, participating in local cultural events or simply getting to know their neighbours, new Canadians are active participants in strengthening the fabric of our society. They embody the spirit of Canadian generosity, and they contribute to the success of their community in many ways. Their stories remind us of why the rules that govern citizenship by descent must be fair, must be clear and must be rooted in the lived experiences of Canadians everywhere.

It is up to us as a government to remain vigilant in ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a powerful symbol of inclusivity, fairness and security. That is why we have brought forward the bill. It is to ensure that access to citizenship by descent remains fair and transparent. At a time when misinformation and division can threaten confidence in public institutions, Canada must show that its commitment to fairness extends well beyond borders.

It is a time when members opposite are saying that it is a good idea to consider a moratorium on immigration. That type of rhetoric does not help when trying to make important decisions for the future of this country. We are talking about extending access to citizenship beyond a first generation. What we are affirming is that Canadian identity is shaped not only by the place of birth but also by connection, contribution and shared values.

The bill would remedy the status of people who would have been Canadian if not for the first-generation limit. It would also create a new forward-looking framework for citizenship by descent. Going forward, children who are born or adopted abroad beyond the first generation would be able to access Canadian citizenship if their Canadian parent can show a substantial connection to Canada. This is not a free-for-all. This is something that is going to be a real set of criteria. As long as a Canadian parent born or adopted abroad has accumulated three years of physical presence in Canada before the birth of the child, their child could be a citizen of this country.

Throughout the committee study, members explored different ways this model could apply. However, at the end of the day, what this is about is fairness. It is about fairness for Canadians. It is about fairness for those who were adopted by Canadians, and it is about fairness for communities who have put their roots down in this country.

We know that citizenship is a profound milestone for those who obtain it. It is a privilege that comes with opportunity and with gratitude, but it also comes with responsibility to uphold the values that unite us. Our job in this House should not be to divide Canadians. It should be to explain to people meaningfully what it means to be a Canadian, to ensure not only that those values are well inculcated but also that the rules of this place do not diminish the status, the stature and the value of one Canadian in relation to another.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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