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.