Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

My question is the same one my colleague MP Fragiskatos asked. Do the Conservatives think, yes, really, with these amendments it will create two tiers of citizenship, and a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian will not apply? Is that why they want to bring some amendments to it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Ms. Zahid, are you asking that of our Conservative colleagues? Does anybody want to respond to that? Okay.

Is there any other debate? If not, shall CPC-2 carry? This is the new version, 13635396.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4)

We are now on clause 4. I believe that Ms. Rempel Garner has an amendment, CPC-3.

Interpreters, it's 13619759.

I'm sorry. I want to make sure that they know what we're talking about.

Ms. Rempel Garner, do you want to speak to it or does Mr. Redekopp?

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

Can he move it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-3 in clause 4 be amended by replacing line 6 on page 7 with the following:

at least 1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person's adoption; or

It would also replace line 16 on page 7 with the following:

at least 1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person's adoption.

This motion is basically the same as what we did in CPC-1. It's just to make it consistent between the adoption side and the “born outside of the country” side. We've talked about it. I don't have much more to say than that. It's just to keep it consistent with the rest of it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I just have a question for the officials.

I would assume that your concern raised earlier holds here as well.

[Uyen Hoang]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Is there anyone else?

We'll have a recorded vote on CPC-3, please.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

Next, we are going to LIB-4. I believe that Mr. Erskine-Smith would like to move it.

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

Okay. Here we go again. It's déjà vu.

This was previously debated, I'll just move it and we'll get into it.

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

(4.1) Subsection (4) does not apply in respect of a person who, while a minor child, was adopted, before or after the day on which An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into force, by a citizen if the adoption is recognized by the province or territory in which the adoptive parent resides and was in accordance with the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-Country Adoption that was concluded on May 29, 1993 and came into force on May 1, 1995.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith. Do you want to speak to it?

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

I just want to pick up where we left off with Alexis' question. I want to make sure I have this absolutely clear in my mind.

The problem that I articulated in my initial remarks, the problem I'm aiming to solve, is not in relation to kids who are adopted. Subsection 5.1(4) speaks to kids who are adopted. That's fair, but the problem I'm trying to solve here is that those then-adopted kids, when they have kids outside of the country, are treated differently.

To be crystal clear here, this amendment will solve that problem. An internationally adopted kid.... Your advice before was that my previous amendment would have no effect. As I articulated, the problem I'm trying to solve is for a kid who is adopted through an intercountry adoption, becomes a citizen of Canada through direct grant and then has a kid elsewhere. They don't adopt a kid elsewhere; they themselves have a kid elsewhere. They are going to be able to pass their citizenship on directly if this amendment is passed.

Is that the advice? I see heads shaking, and that's my concern.

Could you answer that question, please?

[Uyen Hoang]

Perhaps what I could do is give you our interpretation of what the—

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

No, I want an answer to that specific question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, let's have the—

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

I don't want an interpretation of this. I have a specific problem I am aiming to solve. My previous amendment was aiming to solve that as well. I want answers as to whether this amendment solves that specific problem, in your view, because you said previously that the amendment would affect no people, and this amendment would affect people.

Just so we're crystal clear, what I'm aiming to solve is this: that when someone is adopted through an intercountry process and is a Canadian citizen through direct grant, and they themselves then have a child abroad, they're not going to be subject to the “substantial connection” test, if this amendment passes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Is there anyone who can respond to that?

Ms. Dewan.

[Jody Dewan]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

I can speak to what our analysis of this amendment is, what the effects would be. This amendment, as drafted, will have the effect of allowing adopted children to access the 5.1 grant, irrespective of the generation of the adoptive parent if the parent was also adopted and granted under 5.1.

It will not make it possible for an adopted person to pass on their citizenship by descent to a child born abroad. In other words—

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

I understand—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Hold on. Let her finish.

Thank you.

[Jody Dewan]

—prospective adoptive parents, if they themselves were adopted, will not be subject to the first-generation limit at all—and therefore not the “substantial connection” requirement—and will be treated the same as if they were born or naturalized in Canada for the purposes of accessing the 5.1 grant for future children adopted abroad.

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

I understand that, because it's in relation to adopted children, but now.... Your previous advice was that the previous amendment would affect nobody. It was of no force and effect, effectively.

That was your advice to parliamentarians across the aisle and to me, but for Nathaniel—not me, but the example kid from Zambia—this amendment doesn't actually solve the problem of his having a kid abroad. He is going to be treated differently, whereas now, on that previous amendment, where you told me it would have no force and effect, wouldn't that have solved that problem so that he could have passed that citizenship on directly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Is there anybody who wants to respond to that?

Ms. Hoang.

[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.