Debates of Oct. 24th, 2025

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the members for Lanark—Frontenac, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes and Winnipeg North for their interventions. The Chair will take this under advisement and report back to the House in due course.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Citizenship Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised at the Bloc's take on the issue. The member's argument seemed to be that, because the majority of the standing committee allowed the amendment the Bloc and the Conservatives worked together on to pass at committee, the House of Commons does not have the right to make a change. As we know, the House of Commons does have a right to do that.

Even though the government has a minority in seats, if the majority of the members vote in one direction, does the member believe the standing committee should accept it?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees?

I understand what my colleague is saying, and of course, the House is sovereign in its votes, but the committee, which includes members of recognized opposition parties, worked hard to improve the bill.

Today, the government is trying to undermine the work of the committee by joining forces with an unrecognized opposition party. Of course, that party has the right to have its say, but should that mean completely undoing all of the committee's work?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, common-sense amendments were passed in committee. The NDP is now seeking to overturn them, even though it is not recognized as an official party in the House. That is not fair. What does my colleague think?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking her question in my language.

Obviously, that is basically what we are saying. My fear is that this is going to make the entire process futile and pointless. In other words, we will meet in committee, decide on certain things, then return to the House and tear up everything we did.

I think we need to find a way to include the amendments we have proposed. These are reasonable amendments that promote transparency. If we are going to welcome 150,000 new citizens over the next few years, it would make sense to be able to enlighten the House and the entire population on the impact this bill is going to have. This is quite important.

What we are asking for is accountability and transparency. It seems to me that everyone should agree on that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague's speech laid out our basic argument quite clearly.

As far as the numbers go, we disagree with representatives of the NDP and the government on the amount people this would affect. However, if there is one person held in high regard by all members of the House, that would be the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He said that a lot more people would be affected than the Liberal Party or the NDP seem to be letting on.

Can my colleague shed some light on that for us?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we support the principle behind Bill C‑3.

In the course of our work and research, we realized that, of course, wrongs need to be made right, and we agree in principle, although the impact of this could be quite significant. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us. Up to 150,000 more people could become Canadian citizens unless we establish guidelines. At the least, we need to know what the future will look like once the bill is passed.

In the meantime, we think that the guidelines we are proposing will help correct injustices, as long as the parent of the person born abroad was living in Canada for three of the five years preceding that person's birth. We consider that entirely reasonable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address the legislation through its amendments. I hope I can provide some clarification as to why we are here today having this particular debate.

It is important to recognize that amendments and changes were made to the Citizenship Act under the former government, a Conservative government that the leader of the Conservative Party was very prominent in. Through the Ontario Superior Court, we found out it was in violation of rights. Ultimately, we are here today because of a Superior Court order about an issue that Bill C-3 is attempting to resolve.

We have a deadline. The court has indicated that as long as we can pass the legislation by November 20, then the system will in essence stay intact. I have been working in the area of immigration and citizenship for many years, and I really believe something of great significance has been overlooked or, at the very least, not talked about enough.

There are three ways in which one acquires citizenship. The first is the most common and recognized way; a person is born, raised and lives in Canada, as is the case for a high percentage of members in the House.

Another way is through naturalization. Ultimately, naturalization means that individuals are able to come to Canada through some form of an immigration stream. The numbers have fluctuated over the years. Many individuals have been permanent residents in Canada for years but have never taken the next step to get their citizenship, for all sorts of reasons.

For those who do make the decision to pursue their citizenship, which is the majority, there is a 1,095-day qualification in order to get that citizenship. I acknowledge that there is a certain time frame around that number, but these are individuals who have never set foot in Canada in the form of having a successful permanent resident application, which is a very important qualifier. A person can be in Canada as a visitor almost indefinitely. Typically it is a six-month return; people go back to their home country, and then they might come back for another visit. We encourage people to come visit our great lands from coast to coast to coast. This is a positive thing, but it does not count toward a person's citizenship. In order to acquire naturalization, people have to go through a process that sees them being in Canada, after being a permanent resident, for a minimum of 1,095 days.

The third way a person can be a citizen of Canada, and this is where the contention seems to be, is through descent. I will give a very specific example. There are literally thousands of Canadians who serve abroad in order to serve Canadians here in Canada. I am referring to our military personnel and foreign service, and these are just some national government-related positions. There are many international companies rooted here in Canada, headquartered in Canada, with individuals working outside the country in one way or another.

I will try to simplify this. I want members to imagine I am a civil servant working in the embassy, in the foreign service, and I am now posted to country X. While I am in country X, I have a child. That child is not born in Canada but is born in, let us say, Germany. Being part of the foreign service as a diplomat, I might be there for a number of years. I could possibly come back to Canada, or I could stay on a foreign deployment for a number of years, as many bureaucrats will.

Let us say my son or daughter is the age of majority and has an opportunity in the country I was posted to, decides to stay there and, ultimately, has children of his or her own. I end up coming back to Canada, whether I have retired or my posting brings me back to Canada. What the Conservatives are saying, along with the Bloc, is that if my son or daughter has a child, that child cannot be a Canadian. I am suggesting that my grandchild should be entitled to be a Canadian.

In terms of facilitating some sort of a connection, we do have, within the legislation, that there should be evidence of a substantial connection. That substantial connection is 1,095 days. I referred to 1,095 days a few minutes ago. If my son was to maintain that relationship with Canada and have that substantial connection, then why should my grandchild not be able to have the opportunity to call Canada home? This is where we differ. I do not quite understand the opposition to that.

They will take the extreme position, which, I would suggest, is a bit of an exaggeration. Is it possible? All sorts of things are possible, but is it justifiable in order to prevent a second generation from being able to come to Canada as Canadian citizens? Some may argue and ask, why could they not just reapply to become a Canadian? As we all know, it is not as simple as that.

Canada is recognized around the world as one of the countries, I would say the country, to come to, with the strongest reputation today and over past years. There are far more people who want to come to Canada and call Canada home than we can sustain. When we look at immigration and the issue we are talking about today, I think it is reasonable for us to support this because we can still have integrity within our immigration system. We have the flexibility.

The Prime Minister has been very clear on the immigration file and the need to bring stability to it. With Bill C-3, we are empowering Canadians abroad to become Canadians. I see that as a positive thing.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we have not talked about today in this debate is the fact that there may be an additional 150,000 or possibly more citizens. The Liberals really do not know how many there would be.

One problem from an elections point of view is that, according to Elections Canada, these people who would be citizens living outside the country can decide which riding their vote is going to count in. There is no mechanism for Elections Canada to know where they were when they spent their 1,095 days. This problem does not have a solution yet. As we know, some ridings are won by 80 votes or 500 votes, so 150,000 people could be a consideration there.

I wonder if the member has a proposed solution from the Liberal government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely confident in Elections Canada's ability to ensure that we have fair elections in every region of our country. I would like to think that the collective confidence we should have in Elections Canada would allow us to proceed with what Bill C-3 is proposing without concern about any impact it would have on the election, because of some sort of fear factor. I believe that issue can and will be addressed.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite what the government refuses to say, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that this bill should allow 150,000 new people to vote. These are people who do not live here.

We wanted to propose amendments to limit the scope of this bill. Second-generation individuals who do not live here, who live abroad but were born to Canadian parents, are required to have resided in Canada for three years in order to obtain citizenship. We proposed that this requirement be five years instead. This is the same criterion that applies to permanent residents who want to obtain citizenship.

Why is the government refusing to use the same rules that apply to new citizens for people who live abroad?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation requires a substantial connection to Canada with respect to the 1,095 days. That is not necessarily within the five years.

I have had the opportunity to work with literally hundreds if not thousands of individuals who are permanent residents and who contribute immensely to our economy in every significant way that matters. At the end of the day, having that substantial connection to Canada alleviates that particular concern.

With respect to the overall numbers that are out there, just because one can throw a number out does not necessarily mean everyone is going to be flooding in to get their Canadian citizenship. I do not believe we should be denying individuals through a generation, saying that, no, they cannot be identified as Canadians even though they have a substantial connection to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Serious work was done in committee. The Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois proposed some amendments. Now the government is joining forces with the NDP to get rid of all the amendments and all the work done in committee.

I know that a party that does not sit on committees and is not recognized in the House is allowed to propose amendments, but normally, when amendments are brought forward at report stage, they must be amendments on subjects that have not already been discussed.

Why is the House proceeding in this manner when we have worked hard on these issues and discussed them?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would caution the member about diminishing the importance and the sense of equality among members of Parliament who are on the floor of the House. He might not necessarily like it, but there are five political entities inside the House, and all individual members of the House are due equal respect.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to this stage of Bill C-3.

Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable possessions on the face of earth. I know, without a doubt, that no one in this chamber would trade, diminish or relinquish their Canadian citizenship for any price, any prize or any thing. We believe, with good reason, that Canadian citizenship is perhaps the most valuable asset in the world.

The spirits, the legacy and the sacrifice of those who fought to protect the value of Canadian citizenship are with us here today in this chamber as we consider important changes to the processes and pathways to gaining the most valuable asset in the world, becoming Canadian. We have a sacred obligation to respect their ultimate sacrifice for our democracy.

Let me preface this by saying that my citizenship in this country derives from brave people who came here three generations ago from England, Wales and Italy. They came here looking for a better life.

Canada represented, for them, a new frontier, where there was hope, opportunity and a promise that hard work and a commitment to Canada would give them a good life. For me, I owe them everything. I stand here today in this magnificent place of Canadian democracy because of the path and opportunities they gave me as a proud Canadian. While the times were different then, the objectives were the same. They never thought Canadian citizenship was easy. It was hard. They made their way by supporting the ideas of peace, order and good government.

The original text of the bill would have opened the floodgates to people with no serious connection to Canada, either through loose lineage or lived experience here, which was our biggest problem with the legislation. When I was asked to join the citizenship and immigration committee, one of the first pieces of legislation we saw was this bill.

Conservatives support several aspects of this legislation and argued at committee for some changes. We were successful in improving the bill, although questions remain. Will the Liberals recognize the improvements we made to the bill, or will they impose a view that seriously diminishes the value and pathway to becoming a Canadian?

Fundamentally, one big question faces the House at this pivotal time in defining the value of being a Canadian: Is it reasonable for anyone who wants to become Canadian to be required to demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada? I say it is absolutely reasonable, but the Liberals have come up with this idea that foreign-born individuals who have never lived here could gain citizenship just because a parent spent a few months here a few years ago.

Now, I know my Liberal colleagues will say that I am simplifying the scenario, but I know that my immigrant grandparents would be appalled at this concept as a serious option to become a Canadian. This is chain migration without an adequate connection to our country, and it creates a two-tiered system where those who never lived here get the same rights as those who worked hard to earn their Canadian citizenship.

Canadian citizenship should not be inherited as a chattel, an heirloom or a convenient hedge against political or social circumstances elsewhere. Being Canadian takes commitment, not convenience. As one witness said, “There is no benefit derived from having non-contributing citizens living abroad, not paying taxes, but just using a Canadian passport for their convenience and parachuting into Canada when they need assistance.”

Canadian citizenship is not a prize. Canadian citizenship is not a hand-me-down. Canadian citizenship is not an asset to be kept in a safe to be used from time to time. Canadian citizenship is also not a loosely connected generational thread for people who have no understanding of what it means to be Canadian and who do not know the generosity of Canada, the magnificence of Canada, the splendour of our Great Lakes, the majesty of our Rocky Mountains, our linguistic duality and the struggles of building this country across vast distances and impossible terrain.

The most egregious aspects of the original legislation allowed for loosely connected generational individuals to gain citizenship without official language proficiency, security checks against criminal activity or a basic understanding of Canadian history, a test that everyone else seeking citizenship would need to take before being granted the right to enjoy the most valuable asset in the world, which is being a Canadian.

Even the Liberals will grudgingly acknowledge that they screwed up the immigration system over the past 10 years. With over three million temporary residents and half a million undocumented persons now living in Canada, continuing to allow temporary residents' descendants to automatically claim citizenship will deeply impact Canada’s immigration system, housing, jobs and social services.

There are parts of the bill that Conservatives clearly support. We support fixing that glitch in the immigration process that resulted in the so-called lost Canadians, who, through an unintended change in citizenship law, were denied automatic and rightful access to citizenship.

My colleagues on the committee and I worked tirelessly over the past months to study Bill C-3, and we proposed reasonable amendments. One of the most significant amendments was on citizenship by descent and citizenship by adoption. Under the changes approved at committee, a person cannot be granted citizenship by descent or adoption if neither of their parents, who are Canadian citizens, had not been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person’s birth. I know that sounds a little complicated, but there it is.

We also passed amendments on language and knowledge. These reinforce the purpose of a Canadian identity and ensure that those who wish to apply for citizenship, either by descent or adoption, have a connection to Canada’s history and one of its official languages. We also passed amendments requiring security checks to ensure Canada is welcoming people who have a good track record, not a criminal one.

Requiring 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada over the course of 5 years, a clear language, knowledge of Canada’s history and proper security screenings with annual checkups by the ministry would ensure that new Canadian citizens are truly prepared to embrace the rights, responsibilities and values of our beautiful nation. These are not burdensome hurdles. They are safeguards that uphold the integrity of our citizenship system.

Niagara South is a border riding. This past week, I had the opportunity to talk to both the immigration and public safety committees, and in the House, about how we manage the flow of goods and people across one of Canada’s busiest borders. The Peace Bridge in Fort Erie sees over $50 billion a year of trade across the arch of that iconic bridge linking Canada to the U.S. We know we have problems with our entire immigration system. My constituents are very much aware of these issues and have told me that citizenship should not be handed out like playing cards.

When I was elected as a Conservative member of Parliament, I made a commitment to the people of Niagara South that I would hold the government to account and ensure common sense would prevail. The amendments made to Bill C-3 represent the values of what it means to be a Canadian and the sacred trust embodied in it. They also make common sense.

I encourage my Liberal colleagues to accept our reasonable changes to the Bill. They reflect careful consideration and illustrate that we can compromise and make legislation better, something the Liberals asked us to do. Well, we have, and now this legislation is before us. I encourage the Liberals to accept our amendments to protect the most valuable asset in the world, which is Canadian citizenship.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific example of a foreign diplomat who serves abroad and has a child. That child makes the determination, after a number of years, to stay in another country and starts a family. They are still passionate about Canada, they still travel to Canada, they demonstrated that they do have an interest and meet that 1,095 days, but the parent of that child now has a child, so they have their grandparents living in Canada.

Is the member prepared to say that he does not support foreign affairs and people in the Canadian forces being able to pass citizenship down to their grandchildren?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member paints the narrative as though Canada is somehow discriminating against Canadians. Every nation puts limits on the number of generations that can apply for citizenship. It is not unreasonable to put in a generational limit. Chain migration immigration is not an option that any country supports.

This legislation would provide a pathway in perpetuity for many generations of people who may never have set foot in this country, except that their parents or their grandparents may have spent five years here. I just cannot support that. There have to be limits. Not everyone can just become a Canadian because they want to.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up just what the Liberal government has done to our immigration system. It was globally recognized as likely one of the best economic and immigration systems around the globe for decades. There is one thing I was not really surprised by, but I would be interested in getting the member's feedback on it.

Has he heard from first-generation Canadians and people who have immigrated to Canada who are very frustrated with what the Liberals have done? As the member indicated, they have been basically undercutting the value of Canadian citizenship in our country.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a valuable point. There is nothing more valuable, in my view, than Canadian citizenship. All four of my grandparents immigrated here with nothing to show when they got here, but they worked hard. They built a family and a life, and they owned a home, which is very difficult for immigrants today.

We have to understand that being a Canadian is a special privilege. The process through which people proceed must be a legitimate process, not based on showing up here, being lost in the fabric of Canada and then suddenly being able to obtain citizenship. That is not an option for me, and I think we need to focus more on the suggested amendments to the legislation.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate to the members opposite, including government members and the NDP, that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives do not oppose Bill C‑3, quite the contrary. We have shown our support for the bill. However, we did propose amendments to provide a slightly tighter framework for determining whether or not someone is a Canadian citizen when they live outside Canada.

Can my colleague reassure the government that the committee did a thorough job? Should members not take that into account today in this next step in the House of Commons, which is the vote on the bill?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the discussions at committee were comprehensive. We spent a lot of time debating various issues with this legislation, and I am very happy that our colleagues in the Bloc and the Conservatives collaborated to understand some of the issues that were affecting this bill, which had gone through several iterations in the previous Parliament. This legislation effectively died in the last Parliament. It died twice in the last Parliament through different iterations.

This version, with the the amendments that were put forward by the Conservatives and supported by the Bloc, as well as the amendments the Bloc presented that were supported by us, is a good piece of legislation. I would encourage the government to support it.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-3 and the transformative power of Canadian citizenship. At the heart of it, the bill is about Canadians, families, their histories, their sacrifices and their deep and abiding connection to Canada, no matter where their careers or lives may take them.

Since second reading, the immigration committee has completed its review of the bill, heard from many witnesses and brought forward many amendments. As we approach its final passage, I want to highlight why the bill, as drafted, remains the right path forward.

Citizenship is about more than just legal status; it is about belonging to a diverse and welcoming community where shared democratic values bind us together. These values remind us of who we are. They remind us that Canada remains a beacon of light and hope in the world. They remind us that our strength as a nation lies not in uniformity but in our ability to celebrate difference by working together toward a common good, around shared values and shared aspirations.

My parents came to the country because they had little choice. They were lucky that Canada chose them. They came to the country under very difficult circumstances. They would bleed for the country. They would die for the country if that was required of them, because Canada has given them everything. Canada gave them the ability to practise their professions, practise their faith and raise their kids.

With an alignment with values and an alignment in the commitment to community, we take care of our neighbours and believe in the best in all of us. We work together despite our differences, and celebrate those differences, in an era when diversity is looked upon negatively. We look at those differences as an opportunity for strength and use that strength to communicate and connect with the rest of the world and trade with the rest of the world. We find that in our differences, there is remarkable strength and there are opportunities to learn from and about each other. Through that, we can learn about the complicated world in which we live.

My parents taught me from a very young age that citizenship does not just bring rights; it brings responsibilities. That is what we need to be talking about today. We need to talk about ensuring that there is a common understanding of what it means to be a Canadian citizen. It means a commitment to a set of principles and values and to ensuring that, even as migration and mobility are fixtures of modern life, the sense of connectedness to what Canada means is not lost.

Many people who were born in the country, like me, sometimes forget the value of what it means to be a Canadian citizen. Ask anyone who has come to the country and fought for that citizenship, and whose families have fought for that citizenship, what it means.

Where a person is born or how they acquire their citizenship makes them no more or less of a citizen. We all share pride in being Canadian. Those of us who were born here are extremely lucky. It does not mean this value is diminished because of where we were born, whether we were born here or elsewhere.

The modern world takes us to different places. I have had the privilege of living in different countries and studying in different places. I have always come back to this country because it is my home. Others are not so lucky. They end up living in other countries for long periods of time, but their ties to the country and their love for the country do not change.

We have to stop placing a value judgment on what the litmus test is for someone's love and care for and their connectedness to the country by determining that, somehow, birth decides that. There are people born in the country who denigrate Canada every single day. They say the country is broken and they would rather we be part of the United States. There are people who are Canadian and live miles away from this country, and they take such tremendous pride in what this country means and what it stands for.

Our job is to ensure that people who have the right or should have the right to be Canadian citizens through the means articulated by our laws are afforded that opportunity and that those rights are not taken away. Canada already leads the world in so many different areas, particularly in showing the world how successful immigration can work. As some countries' access to immigration is tightened and as the rights to citizenship get tightened, Canada's approach is principled, embraces diversity and ensures the economic prosperity and global ties that make us stronger as a country.

We all know that Canadians live and work abroad, working in the arts and sciences, education, economic development, international development and diplomacy. These citizens maintain deep links to Canada, returning to raise their kids, to work, to study, to care for loved ones and to build community. Ensuring that their children, whether born or adopted abroad, can share in that identity is not just about fairness; it strengthens our country's cohesion and our global reach.

We all know from experiences in our own communities what new Canadians have told us about how important their citizenship is to them, what it means to them, how becoming a citizen has had an impact on them and the ways that we have to continue to safeguard the rights, responsibilities and shared values of citizenship. For those of us from all parties who have attended a citizenship ceremony, we know that it is a moment of deep pride for those who are taking that oath to this country. It is the pride in calling Canada home and the journey that they took to get here. It marks the culmination of years of sacrifice, hard work and perseverance. Often, sacrifices are made not just by the individual but by an entire family, many of whom will never see Canada. It is a moment of great connection to community, opportunity and, indeed, something greater than oneself.

Those of us who have seen the emotional weight of this moment will never forget it. Newcomers, often with their kids by their side, hold their certificates tightly, knowing what it means to them and to their family's future that they will have the security and confidence of being able to be called Canadian. This feeling of pride goes well beyond borders, with people around this world longing for the opportunity to call Canada home. For those fleeing conflict, persecution or hardship, Canadian citizenship represents a new beginning and a beacon of hope to all. It is a privilege that they do not take lightly. The gratitude expressed by new Canadians is profound. We all hear it in our streets and our communities. They speak with pride about the opportunities that Canada has given them when it comes to education and when it comes to building a peaceful life.

These pillars of Canadian society are the cornerstones of a better future, not just for new Canadians but for their children and for future generations. Whether it is through volunteering, participating in local cultural events or simply getting to know their neighbours, new Canadians are active participants in strengthening the fabric of our society. They embody the spirit of Canadian generosity, and they contribute to the success of their community in many ways. Their stories remind us of why the rules that govern citizenship by descent must be fair, must be clear and must be rooted in the lived experiences of Canadians everywhere.

It is up to us as a government to remain vigilant in ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a powerful symbol of inclusivity, fairness and security. That is why we have brought forward the bill. It is to ensure that access to citizenship by descent remains fair and transparent. At a time when misinformation and division can threaten confidence in public institutions, Canada must show that its commitment to fairness extends well beyond borders.

It is a time when members opposite are saying that it is a good idea to consider a moratorium on immigration. That type of rhetoric does not help when trying to make important decisions for the future of this country. We are talking about extending access to citizenship beyond a first generation. What we are affirming is that Canadian identity is shaped not only by the place of birth but also by connection, contribution and shared values.

The bill would remedy the status of people who would have been Canadian if not for the first-generation limit. It would also create a new forward-looking framework for citizenship by descent. Going forward, children who are born or adopted abroad beyond the first generation would be able to access Canadian citizenship if their Canadian parent can show a substantial connection to Canada. This is not a free-for-all. This is something that is going to be a real set of criteria. As long as a Canadian parent born or adopted abroad has accumulated three years of physical presence in Canada before the birth of the child, their child could be a citizen of this country.

Throughout the committee study, members explored different ways this model could apply. However, at the end of the day, what this is about is fairness. It is about fairness for Canadians. It is about fairness for those who were adopted by Canadians, and it is about fairness for communities who have put their roots down in this country.

We know that citizenship is a profound milestone for those who obtain it. It is a privilege that comes with opportunity and with gratitude, but it also comes with responsibility to uphold the values that unite us. Our job in this House should not be to divide Canadians. It should be to explain to people meaningfully what it means to be a Canadian, to ensure not only that those values are well inculcated but also that the rules of this place do not diminish the status, the stature and the value of one Canadian in relation to another.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite, but I am concerned.

The member's initial statement was that he supports the bill as drafted. Can I assume then that the government is going to vote against all the amendments that have been put forward by the Conservative opposition with the support of the Bloc?

Second, the member said that his parents were so proud of their citizenship when they came to Canada. My question is this: Would his parents believe in citizenship in perpetuity for people who actually had never set foot in Canada?