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.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in there that was kind of like a Trey Yesavage slider. We will try not to swing or flail too much at all of those hard pitches from the opposition House leader.

Next week, Canadians will have a choice. An affordable budget for an affordable life that would build Canada strong and build the biggest and best economy in the G7 is one choice they have. The second choice is a Christmas election that no one wants, that would follow six months from the last election and that would deprive Canadians of benefiting from the budgetary plan that the government will be presenting next week.

The opposition serves up green eggs and ham, but on this side of the House there is a plan to build Canada strong and build the strongest economy in the G7.

This afternoon, we will continue the second reading debate of Bill C-14, the bail act. Tomorrow, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025).

On Monday at noon we will go back to debate on Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, and in the afternoon we will turn to Bill C-4, with major tax cuts for all taxpaying Canadians contained in the affordability legislation, at report stage and third reading.

Next Tuesday we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Tuesday will be a big day. At 4 p.m. the Minister of Finance and National Revenue will deliver the budget speech.

I would also like to inform all hon. colleagues that, as we approach the fateful day when the opposition gets to decide whether it deprives Canadians of their Christmas, Wednesday and Thursday will be days reserved for debate on the budget.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work.

We have been hearing a lot about the work done in committee and how important that work is when legislation like Bill C‑14 makes its way there.

Unfortunately, something happened recently with Bill C‑3, which the committee worked on and amended. The bill that came back here was not the same as the original version because we had amended it with Conservative support. However, the Liberal government decided to undo those amendments using House of Commons procedure.

Apparently the government decided not to respect the work done in committee. We are in favour of Bill C‑14, but we want to work on it in committee. We have concerns.

I would like assurances from my colleague today that the committee's work on Bill C‑14 will be respected and that what happened to Bill C‑3 will not happen to Bill C‑14.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to address what I believe is a major issue, one that has been talked about at great length.

I am going to go back to the last federal election. The constituents of Winnipeg North looked to the political entities and made a decision to support certain specific policy ideas and initiatives. The Prime Minister talked a great deal about building Canada strong, about one economy and about looking at ways to expand trade beyond the United States, but the Liberals also spent a great deal of time talking about bail reform.

We understand the concerns Canadians have regarding safer communities. That is why the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament have spent a great deal of time and energy dealing with the subject. Two ministers were assigned the responsibility of bringing forward bail legislation that reflects what we were hearing at the doors. Ministers have done extensive consultations on substantial issues like extortion, violent repeat offenders, automobile theft, sexual assault and many other crimes that take place in our communities.

The legislation is not only a reflection of what Canadians have been telling Liberal members of Parliament over the last number of months; it is also a reflection of what stakeholders have been telling the government. It has widespread support throughout our nation, I would suggest. That does not mean it is absolutely perfect legislation; I do not think anyone is saying that, but I will continue to advocate that if members are serious when they talk about the need for bail reform, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we cannot deliver that to Canadians before the end of the year.

I do not know how many Conservatives I have heard talking about the importance of bail reform. They are challenging the government to bring it forward. It is here, and we are debating it. I am now going to turn the tables and tell my Conservative friends that if they want to deliver on bail reform, we have the opportunity to do just that.

I would remind all members of the House, but in particular my Conservative friends, that this is not something one political party is talking about; it is something Canadians want, and they want Parliament to deliver it. In a minority situation, that requires a whole lot more co-operation. We have demonstrated that very clearly. Now the opposition has the opportunity to show Canadians it is more than just talk on the issue and will, in fact, respond.

The end of the year is coming quickly. There is other very important legislation before the House. There is Bill C-3, which deals with citizenship, and a Superior Court order has demanded that the legislation has to pass by November 20. Bill C-4 has just come from committee and would legitimize a tax break for over 20 million Canadians. Bill C-14 is before us, and I understand that the official opposition wants and is demanding bail reform legislation, but we all know it does not take much to frustrate the legislation.

We have a budget coming up on November 4, which will also demand the time of the chamber. There are substantial things before us, and that is why I look to my friends across the way, because they will ultimately determine whether in fact we are going to be able to have bail reform before the end of the year. It is up to the Conservatives to make that determination.

Let me encourage members in the strongest way possible that if we want bail reform legislation and the opportunities to have extensive discussions at the committee level, we need the bail reform legislation to pass quickly to committee. This would not take away from democracy within the chamber; In fact I can cite what members said earlier today when I raised the issue about the end: Let us have a goal and pass the legislation, new bail laws, before the end of the year.

Today a number of Conservatives have said that, yes, that is something we can achieve. I am going to call their bluff and challenge them to allow the bill to go to committee. That would mean they could continue to discuss it if they want to once it comes back at third reading, but it would also provide for detailed discussions and debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for his speech. I work with that member on various issues, including those related to Tibet, but we are dealing with something else today.

As my colleague knows, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑14 and wants to refer it to committee. However, we are apprehensive. We will propose amendments in committee. There will be discussions and hard work. The bill may be amended in committee.

Our fear is what will happen when the bill returns here from committee. If it is amended, but the Liberals do not like the amendments, they might use the House of Commons to cancel the amendments to the bill made in committee. That is what happened with Bill C‑3. That scares me because, if they can do that, then what is the point of working in committee?

Can my colleague assure us that the committee's work on Bill C‑14 will be respected?

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has concerns about this bill, but we want to study it in committee so we can propose amendments. The Conservatives will probably want to propose amendments too.

However, an additional concern has emerged. During the committee's study of Bill C‑3, members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration voted in favour of a number of amendments. When the bill came back here, the Liberals set out to use the work of the House to undo all the amendments we had worked on in committee.

Is my colleague as concerned about this as I am? This bill will go to committee, where we will do a rigorous job and work hard to amend it. Is he afraid the Liberals will undo all of the committee's work when the bill comes back to the House?

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will definitely work with the member to get something set up at one of the two universities in Winnipeg. I very much appreciate it and look forward to it. I will pick the member up at the airport so we can get to the right venue.

As for the question I have for him, what about Bill C-3, the budget, the border control bill and bail legislation? Does the Conservative Party see all of these things as important issues that need—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not implying that having an ethical government is not in the interests of the Liberal Party. I think that is what I just heard him say, that by having this debate about the Conflict of Interest Act, we are acting only in the interests of the Conservative Party. I would hope that all parties want a regime where the appearance of conflict of interest does not happen.

The member said there are many opportunities for these kinds of debates, and he is right. Today is that opportunity. If the Liberals wanted to get Bill C-3 passed more quickly, they should have managed their calendar better in both this Parliament and the last Parliament.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate, the government and its representatives in the House have been saying that it would be much more important to discuss Bill C‑3, which is not being passed quickly enough.

First, I want to remind members that if the government did not try to undo the work that was done in committee, things could move forward much faster. Second, can my colleague tell us why it is important to talk about ethics, about the rules that must be reviewed every five years, and about the fact that this can be done in the House rather than in committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, and I say that representing the people of Winnipeg North, that the Conservatives have made the decision to start a filibuster, as opposed to dealing with the real issues that Canadians are concerned about, whether it is Bill C-3, bail reform, securing the borders or many other things.

These are issues the standing committee could continue to deal with. After all, the Conservative and Bloc alliance could dictate what is studied at committee. However, rather than doing this in a responsible, they are on the floor today in a sincere attempt to continue the character assassination of the Prime Minister. I find that disgusting. The Prime Minister is abiding by the laws that were put in place by Stephen Harper. It is very disrespectful to Canadians.

I am wondering if the member—

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder.

In the House of Commons, there are standing committees that cover diverse topics ranging from defence to official languages and natural resources. In each of these committees, members discuss important matters. There may be discussions on reports. Why was this debate reopened in the House of Commons today when we should be discussing Bill C‑3?

What is more, the opposition has what we call opposition days. If this issue was truly so important to my opposition colleagues, why did they not use a formal opposition day to debate it and hold a vote on it? I question the process.

At the end of his speech, my colleague mentioned that we need to try to avoid political games. I urge everyone to take seriously the various bills currently before the House of Commons, to be mindful of the time we have available, and to use it wisely.

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

Madam Speaker, I made the assertion that the Conservatives have worked closely with the Bloc on that particular committee to bring the report forward and that the Conservatives have made the determination to talk about it for three hours as opposed to talking about Bill C-3. The member opposite said that the Bloc was not necessarily working with the Conservatives and that he feels this is a legitimate issue to be talking about.

I understand the rules, and I know that the member opposite understands the rules. Nothing prevents debate on the report. If the good will is there from the Bloc party and if that is the real issue, the Bloc members should say no to the Conservative trap and agree to have a discussion at committee, where they could actually go over it.

The Bloc and the Conservatives form a majority on the committee. If the Bloc members are genuine in wanting to look at ways we could change the system, it is not necessary to have the debate here. In fact if they insist on debate, it could have occurred in January or February.

I would love for the Bloc to vote against the motion and then raise the issue at the committee stage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question because, in essence, it captures the message I was hoping to send, which is that we have a very limited amount of time on the floor of the House of Commons, and there are a lot of issues, which are all in the best interest of Canadians, that need to be addressed.

We have the bail reform legislation, which Canadians and stakeholders from coast to coast to coast want to see passed. That legislation cannot necessarily be called until we can pass Bill C-3, which deals with citizenship, because we have a superior court order that has given us a November 20 deadline. We have a budget coming up November 4, not to mention, as my colleague just did, the secure borders legislation.

The official opposition, much like the government of the day, has an obligation to its constituents to allow for the orderly passage of legislation, or at the very least, getting it to committee stage. I would argue anywhere with anyone, time permitting, why debate of this nature is not warranted.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, we have a number of important bills before the House. As my colleague mentioned, this afternoon, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-3, which seeks to correct a historic injustice regarding access to citizenship. We also have a bill on ambitious bail reform, as well as a bill on border security.

Can my colleague tell me why the opposition insists on using debate time in the House to discuss a committee report rather than focusing on legislation that is central to the mandate entrusted to us by Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would have personally much preferred to be debating Bill C-3. What I believe members of the Liberal caucus came to hear and to participate in is Bill C-3. This debate is being imposed upon us by the Conservatives. I suspect they are going to get the Bloc, as it supported the amendments at committee, to support the motion now on the floor. If I am wrong, I will personally apologize to the member.

We should not be debating this motion right now. What we should be debating is Bill C-3. Again, I would agree there is a need for change with regard to conflicts of interest, but when we are dealing with issues like this, would it not be wonderful if more of a consensus was achieved inside the committee and if the amendments brought forward for dealing with conflicts of interest had a consensus? Right now, we are abiding by the Stephen Harper legislation that is currently there.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed in my colleague's intervention. He says we should be talking something else, like Bill C‑3. He does that often. If the Liberals would stop sabotaging the work that is done in committee, we could make more progress on Bill C‑3. They need to take a look in the mirror.

Today we are seeing the perfect example of the art of turning an ethical debate into a petty political debate. The Bloc Québécois is not forming a coalition with another party to disrupt the Liberal Party and discredit the Prime Minister. The Bloc Québécois is going to rally behind substantive arguments. If the Liberals have any, they will have our support. It is as simple as that.

What is more important right now than to do what Parliament calls us to do every five years, namely review the Conflict of Interest Act?

The Liberals do not like the idea of restoring public confidence in democratic institutions. The Liberals do not like the Prime Minister's past. That is their problem. However, discussing a report in the House that says the act needs to be revised and that outlines the elements that need to be revised is not a waste of time. I am sorry.