Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[Uyen Hoang]

Again, all I can say is that we analyzed the previous amendment when you tabled it, and it is our view that it had no effect.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

When you say “no effect”—

[Uyen Hoang]

This amendment, however, is doing something different. We can speak to this amendment, but the previous amendment did not have any effect.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'm sorry.

Ms. Dewan, you just said—and correctly—that this would apply to adopted kids.

If, for example, you have someone subject to an intercountry adoption who then goes on to adopt, which is why I actually changed “or” to “and”, to make sure that there's always that real and substantial connection to a provincial or territorial agency and residence here in Canada.... A real and substantial connection is then built into the process.

My concern, though, is that I feel absolutely misled, because the previous amendment would have actually effected a change, such that someone who is adopted through an intercountry adoption would have then not been subject to the real and substantial connection test if they had—themselves—a kid abroad.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Is there anybody who wants to respond to that?

Ms. Dewan.

[Jody Dewan]

I cannot answer your hypothetical—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It's not hypothetical. There was an amendment on the table, and you gave advice that appears to be incorrect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, kindly allow our officials to answer.

Ms. Dewan.

[Jody Dewan]

The amendment that was previously tabled did not have an effect because of the provision of the act that it was proposing to amend. It is possible to amend the act in such a way that you could achieve the effect you seek to achieve, but not through the previous amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I just have one last question, Chair, and then I will leave it alone.

The amendment to this section specifically speaks to kids who are adopted abroad. You told me that it effects a change. The previous amendment spoke to kids born abroad. The exact same language is effecting the exact same change. Honestly, I feel entirely misled at this point, because it would have affected that child who was growing up and has a kid abroad. That child would then not have been subject to the substantial connection test, had that previous amendment passed. It would have actually affected real live people.

Anyway, we're not going back. I don't expect I'm going to get unanimous consent. I expect this will get litigated again. I don't even know what to say about the advice you previously gave this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith, and thank you, officials, for that.

Is there any other debate? We'll have a recorded vote on LIB-4.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We are now moving on to the new version of CPC-4, which for our interpreters is 13635998.

Mr. Redekopp, please go ahead.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that Bill C-3, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 7 the following:

(4.1) No person who is adopted on or after the day on which An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into force may be granted citizenship under any of subsections (1) to (3) if the person

(a) is 18 years of age or more but less than 55 years of age at the date of his or her application and does not have an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada;

(b) is 18 years of age or more but less than 55 years of age at the date of his or her application and does not have an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, as demonstrated in one of the official languages of Canada; or

(c) is 18 years of age or more and has not undergone a security assessment to determine whether or not they would be inadmissible under any of sections 34 to 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Once again, this is just a duplication of what we discussed previously. I'm sure all the previous comments would just carry over to here, so I move that we go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I would ask the officials to put their views on the record.

[Uyen Hoang]

As drafted, this amendment appears to cause the testing and assessment requirements to apply to all those who access the section 5.1 adoptions grant in the first generation and beyond, so it's not just after the first generation. The new subsection would have the effect that, in order to access the direct grant of citizenship for adoptees under section 5.1 of the act, persons aged 18 to 54, for the first two requirements of language and knowledge, and anyone 18 or older, for security clearances, adopted on or after Bill C-3 is in force would be required to demonstrate adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada, demonstrate adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship as demonstrated in one of the officials languages of Canada and undergo a security assessment to determine whether or not they would be inadmissible under any of the sections 34 to 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I would say that there are similar concerns from the perspective of.... This is a grant, so it is different. The previous amendment applied to children born abroad in the first generation and beyond who are citizens from birth. This one would apply, in the grant context, where they do have to come forward to seek a grant and, as part of that grant, there are criteria that have to be met. This proposed amendment introduces additional criteria that would have to be met in order to be granted citizenship. Similarly, to the same concern we mentioned earlier, it introduces sections 34 to 37 of IRPA and, in the Citizenship Act, there is no reference to inadmissibilities. It refers to prohibition, whether or not someone would be prohibited from obtaining citizenship, so it links the two acts together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Hoang.

Are there any other questions? If not, we will go to a vote on CPC-4.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

We have amendment CPC-5, which I believe is in clause 5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

We have that in the new clause afterwards, after this. It's according to the recommendation of the legislative clerk that we do clause 5 and then the new clause comes up. Right now we're on clause 5. I just want to make sure that everybody is aware of which clause we're talking about.

Mr. Fragiskatos, do you have a question?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I was just going to say that there are no amendments to clause 5, just to be clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Alexis, you look troubled about clause 5.

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

I thought that the Conservatives wanted to move an amendment to clause 5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

That's another one.

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

Now we have a new clause in CPC-5. For our interpreters, it's 13620196.

Who would like to speak to it?

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have concerns about transparency and having some numbers, so I move that Bill C-3 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 8 the following new clause:

5.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 26:

26.1 (1) Within three months after the end of each fiscal year, the Minister must prepare an report for the previous year that sets out the number of persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of An Act—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

For the millions of people tuning in to the committee right now, let's give our wonderful interpreter the chance to start over. She doesn't have the right document on hand.