Bill C-3

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s adoption;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and
(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.

Citizenship Act

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

Why is that a problem for my colleague?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

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

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

I spoke about this the other day.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

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

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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