Point of order.
Evidence of meeting #6 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was adopted.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #6 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was adopted.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
That would be the way to understand the best course forward, rather than what we're doing now.
Liberal
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Madam Chair, I think you said it correctly. Either Mr. Erskine-Smith withdraws or we go to a vote. There's no negotiation here about further amendments that he may want to have and how they may have an impact.
We're discussing this specific amendment. We want to move on with the work of the committee, so I think we should just call a vote as it appears that Mr. Erskine-Smith is not willing to withdraw it unless he gets some kind of negotiation about his other amendments. That's not how committees work.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.
Mr. Erskine-Smith, would you like to take this to a vote?
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
This goes back to Alexis' question about how many people this touches. This amendment, we're told, doesn't touch anyone. Ms. Hoang went on to say that a subsequent amendment, I think it was LIB-4, effects the change that would affect around 2,000 people from the last five years.
If the advice from the officials is that this particular amendment doesn't effect the change, which is contrary to the view of the lawyer I consulted, that's fine by me. I'm happy to withdraw the amendment, and we can proceed with the exact same debate when we get to LIB-4. I'm fine with that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.
I need unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. Do I have that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
(Amendment withdrawn)
Next, we are on to the new version of CPC-2, which, for our interpreters, is version 13635396.
Who would like to speak to this motion?
Ms. Rempel Garner.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
Colleagues, you will have received this via email. I do have printed copies in both official languages at the front if you need them.
I move that Bill C-3, in clause 1, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 4 the following:
(3.1) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a person born outside Canada on or after the day on which An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into force if the person
(a) is 18 years of age or more but less than 55 years of age 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 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.
Colleagues, much like the amendments I moved earlier, these provisions would put somebody obtaining citizenship through the provisions in Bill C-3 through the same provisions they would require to obtain citizenship by naturalization. Again, this speaks to the value of Canadian citizenship.
First, anybody obtaining citizenship through the provisions in Bill C-3 should have an adequate knowledge of one of Canada's official languages. Again, this is language that's lifted directly out of the Citizenship Act. To me, one of the responsibilities of citizenship is being able to communicate in one of Canada's official languages. It makes sense to me to align this with the Citizenship Act.
The language in proposed paragraph (b) is the language that's also in the Citizenship Act with regard to the requirement of a citizenship test. It seems unfair to me that somebody obtaining citizenship through Bill C-3 would not have to go through the same process of a citizenship test that somebody obtaining citizenship through naturalization would.
Then, proposed paragraph (c) is the same security requirement that somebody obtaining citizenship through naturalization would go through.
The intent of this amendment is to harmonize the provisions of Bill C-3 with the provisions that are currently in the Citizenship Act in order to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have some concerns with this amendment.
I worry about the intent of some of these Conservative amendments, which seem to seek to add conditions to birthright citizens. This bill is talking about citizenship. It is not about immigration. Some birthright citizens would be subjected to language or knowledge tests or have other conditions placed on their citizenship, while others would not.
We are not talking about immigration here. We're talking about the people born Canadian to Canadians. It is unfair to have conditions placed on what should be their birthright. This seems to be a return to two tiers of Canadians. The Conservatives tried to create that. It was soundly rejected by Canadians back in 2015. To quote a former prime minister, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”
I would really ask the officials to speak to the consequences of creating different classes of Canadians or two tiers of Canadian citizenship. Could the officials talk about it?
Director General, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
As you are well aware, Bill C-3 is about Canadian citizens by descent. They are born Canadian. Their status is from their Canadian parent. They become citizens at the moment of their birth, automatically, by operation of law. Imposing language proficiency and knowledge requirements as well as security requirements as conditions of acquiring, maintaining or retaining their citizenship status as proposed by this amendment would be impossible to operationalize, as such status is conferred by operation of law at the moment of their birth.
Furthermore, from a technical perspective, there is reference to inadmissibilities in IRPA. In the Citizenship Act, we do not have IRPA sections. Our own prohibitions are different from inadmissibilities. IRPA is about foreign nationals, while the Citizenship Act is about people acquiring citizenship.
In addition to the impossibility of being able to operationalize these requirements, it could lead us down a path of actually creating more lost Canadians. The bill is to restore citizenship to lost Canadians. It's the reason we're here today. With this type of requirement, we could potentially create another cohort of lost Canadians.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
I think the point has been dealt with. I had basically the same question as Ms. Zahid. I'm fine.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I just want to tell colleagues that we will have another amendment later that will address some of the operationalization components of this, so I think “impossible” is the wrong word.
Liberal
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
Is it the Conservative position, then, that they understand this amendment is problematic, but they will support it anyway because there's another one coming that will fix it? Why not just fix it now?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Does anybody want to respond to that? Okay.
Is there any other further debate?
Ms. Zahid.