Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-3.
The bill would remedy the status of people who, were it not for the first-generation limit imposed in 2009, would be Canadian citizens by descent from birth. This is largely a cohort of children who were born after 2009, which means they would be 16 years of age and younger; it also includes descendants of previously lost Canadians. It also addresses a very small historical cohort who lost citizenship under the outdated provisions of the 1977 Citizenship Act.
During the study in committee, members proposed and adopted several amendments to Bill C‑3. The government reviewed each of them.
After doing that, we are convinced that the initial concept of Bill C‑3 brings fairness and transparency to our system and confirms the value of Canadian citizenship.
The framework set out in the bill for citizenship by descent is straightforward. Once enacted, a Canadian parent born abroad may pass on their citizenship to a child born or adopted abroad only if that parent has at least 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before the child is born or adopted. Each generation after the first one must demonstrate their connection to Canada. If a parent does not do so, citizenship by descent stops with them.
I would like to point out that this bill does not seek to create a new way to immigrate to Canada.
This is not an immigration bill, nor would it allow people who are living abroad to pass on Canadian citizenship in perpetuity.
The goal is to ensure that children of Canadians with a substantial connection to our country can obtain citizenship by descent, regardless of where they were born or adopted.
The question then is this: How do we measure the connection? For people who move to Canada and seek to become Canadian, we have a clear way to assess whether they have a substantial connection to the country, and that is laid out in the Citizenship Act; they would have to accumulate 1,095 days in a five-year period in order to apply for naturalization. However, citizenship by descent is different. It is not about granting citizenship for someone to join Canada; rather, it is about confirming citizenship at birth based on the parent's connection to Canada. For that reason, the test is different.
Bill C-3 is based on a cumulative model. For Canadian parents born outside Canada, this model adds up every day that a parent spent in the country before starting a family. This approach recognizes the many ways that Canadians can maintain a substantial connection to the country, even when they have to go abroad for work, school or family responsibilities.
Take, for example, a Canadian child born abroad whose family moves every two years for work. This child may have lived in Canada for nearly a decade before turning 18 without ever having spent three consecutive years in the country over a five-year period.
When that child grows up, they could start a family or choose to adopt abroad. Under a fixed three-out-of-five-years framework, because of real-life experience in Canada, it would be impossible for their child to obtain citizenship.
The cumulative model would allow Canadians whose lives span borders to demonstrate their connection to Canada from birth until they start a family. It is the fairest and most practical way to uphold the value of Canadian citizenship. Importing the naturalization requirements into citizenship by descent would conflate the two distinct policy purposes and risk excluding the children of Canadians whose ties to Canada were built here over time.
For immigrants to Canada, our naturalization process assesses their readiness to join the Canadian family. It requires establishing a substantial connection to Canada through recent residence, knowledge of the country, capacity in one of our official languages and tests that confirm they are ready to become part of our shared civic life.
Citizenship by descent is different. It is not an immigration pathway. It does not confer membership in Canada on someone new. It recognizes citizenship that existed from birth through a Canadian parent who has a real connection to Canada, either because they were born here or because they met the statutory test of physical presence in Canada.
We are not asking Canadians born in Canada to take tests to keep their citizenship and we are not imposing these kinds of tests on Canadians born abroad.
Imposing such tests on people who were born or adopted abroad beyond the first generation would create distinctions among Canadians based solely on place of birth. Canada cannot have different classes of citizens.
Bill C-3 maintains an appropriate degree of separation between immigration law and citizenship law. It guarantees that citizenship at birth, whether it is determined by place or by descent, remains clear, consistent and secure.
Bill C-3 includes important safeguards to uphold both the integrity of citizenship and the security of Canada. Citizenship by descent would not operate on the honour system. The burden of proof in the act would rest squarely on the Canadian parent, who must provide evidence of their 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before the child is born or adopted. Documents, including educational transcripts, pay stubs and leases, would be reviewed by officers. If a parent cannot demonstrate the required physical presence, their child born or adopted abroad would not become Canadian, unless they immigrate here afterward through our immigration pathways, of course.
All of Canada's existing integrity measures also continue to apply. Passport controls, coordination among law enforcement agencies, the prosecution of extraterritorial offences and the revocation of citizenship in cases of fraud will continue to be key tools for protecting the safety of Canadians and their confidence in the citizenship system.
Our government remains committed to transparency. Citizenship and immigration results are already publicly reported through tools such as the annual report to Parliament on immigration and the departmental results report.
The creation of new reporting obligations, particularly for data that Canada does not collect, such as country of residence or dual citizenship, would add unnecessary complexity and more costs for Canadians.
The bill represents a thoughtful and balanced step forward when it comes to citizenship laws in Canada.
We know there is a relative consensus among the parties about the necessity to correct the injustice that is there. We believe that the bill offers that solution.
The bill also modernizes the application of citizenship by descent. It preserves the connection between generations of Canadians while ensuring that laws remain clear, practical and consistent.
We believe the 1,095 days is an equitable way to measure the authenticity, the relationship and the value of the parent's attempt to get citizenship for their child.
Language skills, knowledge tests and security checks will be maintained where they are needed in the naturalization and immigration process.
I will tell a quick story. A number of people reach out to my office. Jeff, a Greek Canadian whose grandparents became Canadian while working in the flea markets of Montreal wrote to me. His father met his mother in the 1970s, and they had Jeff in Athens. He grew up in Canada and pursued his education here, and then work opportunities took him back to Greece. Although he has lived in many countries, he retains his connection to Canada with regular visits. Without Bill C-3, his children would not have the chance to inherit the citizenship and identity that shaped them.
As we continue this debate, I encourage members to have an open mind and pass the bill.