Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'll get the thumbs-up from the interpreters first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

Mr. Redekopp, I got a thumbs-up.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

All right. Here we go.

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 to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), their countries of citizenship other than Canada, if any, their most recent country of residence and the provisions of this Act under which they are citizens.

(2) The Minister must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.

This is about accountability and transparency, so that Parliament and the people of Canada have a sense of how many people have been affected by these changes. We think it's important that this information is made public. Just today, we asked a numbers question on a different issue. They're common things that are asked and required. We feel this would be very helpful information, and it should be doable for the department.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Does anybody want to comment on this?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

To the officials, obviously, if there are concerns or objections, please put them on the record.

[Uyen Hoang]

Again, I want to emphasize that Bill C-3 is about Canadian citizens by descent. They are born Canadian.

The Government of Canada has not tracked births abroad since 1977. As such, it's not possible to accurately state how many persons will, through operation of law, become citizens as a result of the bill. Further, not all individuals who become citizens as a result of the bill will seek a certificate of citizenship, known as the proof of citizenship.

Introducing this reporting requirement would require the government to implement a mechanism for Canadian citizens to register the birth of their children outside of Canada, which will place an additional burden on Canadians and the government. However, unless such a registration or some other interaction with the department with respect to this cohort is mandatory, the data collected by the IRCC would not be accurate when we table such a report.

In the case of adoptees, because they come forward to seek a grant of citizenship from section 5.1, we could report on them because there is an application process. They come forward and we have a record of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Hoang.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Shall CPC-5 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 6)

Now we are on clause 6. Who would like to speak to CPC-6?

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This gets back to what my colleague—

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

I have a point of order. I'm sorry to cut my colleague off.

We are on reference 13627040.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

We have the thumbs-up. Perfect.

This is in relation to what my colleague, Ms. Rempel Garner, spoke about. There are some operational things that need to be done. This is one of the things that is required.

I move that:

6(1) Subsection 27(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(c.01) respecting the length of physical presence in Canada required under subparagraphs 3(3)(a)(ii), 3(3)(b)(ii), 5.1(4)(a)(ii) and 5.1(4)(b)(ii), including the manner of calculating the length of physical presence, any documents required to demonstrate that a person meets the requirement and the circumstances in which the requirement does not apply;

This is to give the department some ability to get documentation and operationalize some of the things we've asked for in here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I just want to get the officials to put their view on the record.

[Uyen Hoang]

There are four points that I would offer for this proposed amendment.

First, given that length of time is a significant factor in shaping the bill, it is something that would normally be put in the Citizenship Act and legislation, and not put in the regulations.

The second point is that it would be redundant to have it in two places. The proposed amendment would have it in the act, but you would also have it in the regulations.

The third point is that there is already regulation-making authority in the act to define the information and evidence that would be required for us to assess the substantial connection requirement. I would like to point out that the department already does this on a regular basis for various lines of businesses, from assessing permanent residency status to assessing the grant of citizenship, whereby they have to meet 1,095 days within the last five years.

We also do this through the interim measure, whereby for those born on and after December 19, 2003, they would have to demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada of 1,095 days. The department already has a lot of experience and is doing this already. We have processes in place.

The last point is that putting this into the regulations versus operational guidance would make it quite restrictive in terms of giving us the flexibility to assess the requirement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Hoang.

If there are no other comments, shall CPC-6 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

We'll go to CPC-7.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move that Bill C-3 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 8 the following new clause:

6.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 27:

27.01 (1) Within three months after the end of each fiscal year, the Minister must prepare a report for the previous year that sets out the number of persons in respect of whom the requirement to undergo a security assessment under paragraphs 3(3.1)(c) or 5.1(4.1)(c) was waived and the reasons for which it was waived.

(2) The Minister must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.

Once again, this is about transparency. In particular, this is about granting citizenship with exemptions to the security screening, including the number of exemptions and the reasons used. We think it's important for Parliament to know how the minister is using the powers they have. This should accomplish that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

We move to Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Would the officials put their view on the record?

[Uyen Hoang]

The two previous substantive amendments I know you changed. I don't have the exact numbers, but on the ones related to security assessments for both those born abroad in the first generation plus those who access the direct grant of adoption—section 5.1—in the first generation, the way they are written they seek to add these grounds to undergo a security assessment. They do not set out any authority to waive inadmissibilities. The purpose of this amendment—in other words, to require a report on the number of times these inadmissibilities have been waived and the reasons for their waiver—appears to be moot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Hoang.

If there are no further comments, let's go to a vote on CPC-7.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(Clause 7 agreed to on division)

Good job. Now we move on to the title. The current title is “An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)”. Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?