Debates of Oct. 27th, 2025

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

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

moved that Bill C-245, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to start debate on Bill C‑245, which I tabled on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

The purpose of our bill is to exclude Quebec from Canadian multiculturalism so that Quebec can apply its own model for integrating immigrants. It is simple, just a bill with a single section, stating that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec. This bill was largely inspired by the work of my colleague from Montcalm who tabled Bill C‑393 during the 42nd Parliament and Bill C‑226 during the 43rd Parliament, that is, in 2018 and 2020.

Why are we raising this issue again today? It is because the context has changed again. The bill has become even more important with the new situation in Quebec. My colleagues in the House may not be aware of this, but on May 28, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 84, the Act respecting integration into the Québec nation, which gives Quebec its own integration model. It is therefore clearer than ever that Quebec has its own integration model that is not the same as Canada's multiculturalism model. What is more, on the day of the vote, the Quebec National Assembly also adopted the following motion:

THAT the National Assembly recall that, as a distinct host society, the Québec nation has its own national integration model;

THAT it declare that the Québec national integration model fosters social cohesion and counters isolation and communitarianism;

THAT it affirm that the national integration model is distinct from Canadian multiculturalism.

I would like to begin by explaining where Canadian multiculturalism comes from. To do that, we need to go back to 1867, to the early days of Confederation. In French Canada, Confederation was sold to the public as a pact between two founding peoples, the English and the French, with no mention of the first nations. Many people wanted to believe in this tale of two equal founding peoples walking joyfully along hand in hand, to the point where many French Canadians considered settling in Ontario and western Canada. Some even went so far as to do so. They wanted to live the dream of the two founding peoples being friends and equals.

Louis Riel's hanging was a brutal indication that Canada would never accept a significant francophone presence in the rest of Canada. This also applied to first nations, as Louis Riel worked and lived among the Métis and first nations. The only place where French would be tolerated was in the bilingual province of Lower Canada, and that is where it had to stay. That is the message that was sent at the time and that is the message that was received. From that moment on, my ancestors began to understand that Quebec was the only national home for French Canadians, the only place where they could truly feel at home and safe. This has been confirmed over time by the ban on French in almost all Canadian provinces, especially in school education when French-language schools were closed.

Rather than defining themselves as French Canadians, French Canadians living in Quebec gradually began identifying as Quebeckers and wanting to develop their own quasi-state. Corporations like Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec were created, along with Hydro-Québec, which nationalized the hydro sector. All these efforts served as a means to affirm Quebec as a nation, an expression of our transition from a French Canadian to Québécois identity. Some folks even began calling for Quebec, which was de facto bilingual, to become francophone with Bill 22, followed by Bill 101. They even dreamed of making Quebec its own country. That bothered a lot of people in English Canada because, to them, French Canadians and Quebeckers were the proverbial drawers of water, and there was no question of that ever changing.

The outcome of all this was the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which came close to achieving recognition for linguistic and cultural duality, known at the time as biculturalism. Then along came someone who would make that impossible: Pierre Elliot Trudeau. He supported linguistic bilingualism, but staunchly opposed the recognition of French-Canadian and Quebec culture—something new in Quebec. Quebec's affirmation had to be defeated. This is when the focus shifted to multiculturalism. As Quebeckers, we collectively transitioned from an imagined position as a founding people to denying our very existence as Quebeckers. That is what was shocking about Pierre Elliot Trudeau's multicultural policy.

That is also why Quebec rejected the 1982 Constitution. It was rejected not only by the premier at the time, René Lévesque, but by every premier since then as well. It is also why the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords failed. Quebeckers have never gotten over this betrayal. It should also be noted that the Canadian model does not even recognize the existence of Quebeckers or indigenous peoples. In fact, according to multiculturalism philosophy, there is no such thing as founding peoples, and there is no such thing as a host society. It is as though newcomers have settled on a virgin land called Canada, where there is no history, no culture, no values. It is a veritable tower of Babel.

Canada misuses and trivializes other cultures by freezing them in time and inviting people who come here to define themselves by their country of origin rather than their host country. Whether they have been here for one generation or 10, they are immigrants and they will remain immigrants. They are exiles for eternity.

How can we build social cohesion, social solidarity and a society with shared values and a common vision for the future, when some people glorify the isolation of communities? I do not know. Canadian multiculturalism is a slippery slope that allowed Justin Trudeau to go so far as to claim, in 2015, that Canada was the first postnational state, as though Quebeckers do not form a nation. If Canada wants to be a postnational state, that is its business. We, in Quebec, are a nation in our own right, and we have no intention of getting engulfed in that. The Quebec nation does not exist anywhere else in the world, and our provincial status leaves us in a dangerously weak position vis-à-vis a central government controlled by the Canadian majority. Multiculturalism is a slippery slope that is becoming even slipperier in our time, given that, for example, supposedly progressive Canadians are going so far as to challenge bilingualism on the pretext that it could hinder the emancipation of many people who speak several languages but not French.

The most compelling and most recent example is the decline in the appointment of francophones to certain positions requiring at least some knowledge of both English and French. We only need to think of the appointment of Mary Simon as Governor General of Canada, although this is not an isolated case.

In today's multiculturalist Canada, French is being transformed into a barrier to diversity, as if French is not part of that diversity, particularly in the context of primarily English-speaking North America. Not only is multiculturalism a model that does not work for Quebec, but it is in direct conflict with what Quebec wants, as I mentioned earlier. It conflicts with Quebec's Act respecting integration into the Québec nation. Multiculturalism is a policy that we must break free from if we want to continue having successful immigration to Quebec. That is the subtext of Bill 101, Bill 96 and even Bill 21. The goal of these laws is to embrace immigrants and let them know that we want them to become part of the Quebec nation.

Just because someone opposes Canadian multiculturalism does not mean they oppose ethnic and cultural diversity. That is often how our opponents try to portray us. They will attempt to conflate the concepts of cultural and ethnic diversity and Canada's multiculturalism policy, which is toxic for Quebec. The Quebec nation is made up of people from all kinds of backgrounds and cultures. However, as Quebeckers, we share a common culture, which is enriched by the contributions made by people from around the world who choose to join our Quebec culture. This has been going on for 400 years and will continue well into the future.

Let me be clear, Quebec is not frozen in time. It is 2025. Today's Quebec is not the Quebec of New France. That proves that we are shaped by our geography, our climate, our history, but also by the people who come from other parts of the world and join the Quebec nation.

We are not asking people who come here to ignore their roots. We are not asking them to relinquish their identity when they get here. On the contrary, we want to maximize interactions between immigrants and the host society, so that newcomers gradually develop a sense of belonging and feel more and more like Quebeckers. This is not a one-way process. It goes both ways. It is inevitable that newcomers will also influence those who are already here, and that is a good thing. Basically, we give and we receive at the same time.

However, we do not want people to be perpetual immigrants, either. This is fundamental to the concept of Quebec's integration policy. We do not want the children and grandchildren of newcomers to still be considered immigrants. We want them to be full-fledged Quebeckers, fully integrated people who add to who we are as Quebeckers.

I will give an example that says it all: Mary Travers. Who is Mary Travers? She is the daughter of an Irish immigrant whom we all know as “La Bolduc”. Is there anyone who is more of a Quebecker than La Bolduc? When we talk about traditional Quebec music, she is the first person who comes to mind. She is the gold standard. However, her music was influenced by her Irish roots. Obviously, she was also influenced by the Quebec culture that was all around her. At the time, it could be referred to as French-Canadian culture. She blended the two traditions and went on to influence all of Quebec society. Her sound continues to influence our traditional music to this day. It is magnificent.

Mary Travers is not an isolated example. The same is true of a wide range of fields today. Consider the films of Ricardo Trogi, who is of Italian heritage; the music of Loco Locass' Chafiik, who is of Lebanese heritage; or the writings of Boucar Diouf, who is of Senegalese heritage. These examples are not all. There are plenty more examples of successful people who are an integral part of the Quebec nation and who changed and influenced who we are as Quebeckers. They helped shape our culture and our collective imagination. I love that. In short, that is Quebec's model for living together in harmony, and it works.

Canadian multiculturalism, on the other hand, means living side by side, nothing more. Most importantly, it means making Quebeckers invisible and negating our status as a nation. That is not okay.

Considering that Quebec recently passed its own law on national integration, our law on national integration should obviously take precedence over the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Nothing else will work. The two models are contradictory.

The easiest way to make that happen would be to pass Bill C‑245. This would allow Quebec to define itself, to decide for ourselves who we are and what is best for us. From a broader perspective, that may also be what is best for Canada. Canada might decide to look at what is being done in a thriving and prosperous Quebec and draw some inspiration. That could happen. It could also encourage Canada to adopt its own model, which might not be the Quebec model or multiculturalism, but one that it defines for itself.

The good thing about this bill is that we are not attacking Canada and we are not attacking Canadians. We are not even trying to prevent Canadians from maintaining their multiculturalism policy. All it does is allow Quebec to adopt its own integration model. Ottawa needs to let us be ourselves.

Our bill is particularly interesting because it proposes a model for living together in way that is joyful and fulfilling, which can only be positive. As I see it, a bill like this would normally just be a formality. All parties should be voting in favour of it. It will also better equip all newcomers to Quebec who will no longer necessarily have to cope with the notorious duality or dual legitimacy of Quebec versus Canada, which is always harmful.

I urge the parties in the House to vote in favour of our bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as an Acadian, I am proud to support the objectives of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Our policies supporting multiculturalism and others promoting our two official languages can be mutually reinforcing. Consider all the work our government has done to promote francophone immigration. In fact, the first week of next month will be National Francophone Immigration Week, which brings together thousands of francophones from across the country in a celebration of cultural wealth and diversity.

I want to ask my colleague this: How do the principles championed by the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, like reciprocity, dialogue and respect for pluralism, stand in the way of Quebec's ability to keep protecting its culture?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian multiculturalism policy rejects any notion of a majority host society. What it says is that all peoples are of equal value. That is correct. Indeed, all peoples in the world are of value. It is important that they exist.

Nevertheless, the Quebec people exist in only one place in the world: in Quebec. Considering the Quebec people as just one of many peoples within Quebec diminishes the appeal of the Quebec nation to people arriving in Quebec. What we want is to encourage people arriving in Quebec to become part of the Quebec nation, and not to isolate themselves from it.

We want to work with them to pass on our culture to them and build a society that will be different tomorrow, one that they contribute to and are proud to participate in.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a Franco-Ontarian, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

With all due respect, I would like to mention that we, as French Canadians, live and survive in the French language. We have just celebrated the 50th anniversary of our flag. We have schools and our community health care centres. We live our lives in French. It is much the same across Canada.

My daughter just moved to Thunder Bay. My grandson immediately started attending a French-language school. That is the reality, whether in Maillardville, British Columbia or St. Boniface.

My question is this: How does my colleague's bill protect the French language outside Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about two different battles.

Our bill specifically targets Quebec only. There really is no direct effect on other provinces.

Of course, Quebec's integration model includes the concept of passing on the French language to Quebeckers. If a French-speaking Quebec becomes stronger and thrives, it can only be a positive thing for francophone communities outside Quebec.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are increasingly seeing around the world is that models based on multiculturalism are being rejected. Multiculturalism involves interacting with people on the basis of their ethnic origin, which encourages people to remain within their ethnic group.

In contrast, the Quebec model, which we call an intercultural model and which many people today refer to as cultural convergence, aims to further promote integration into the workplace and integration into the culture of the host society. This could apply to the rest of Canada if people were interested in such an approach. It would further encourage the integration of newcomers into the francophone culture all over Canada.

This bill has been introduced several times in the House over the years. There are people who believe that the Quebec model does not exist, that there is no other model for integrating newcomers than multiculturalism.

How does my colleague explain this lack of knowledge—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the reason lies in the history behind the Canadian multicultural policy, which, at the time, was put in place in a way that failed to recognize Canadian biculturalism, or the difference between English Canada and French Canada. Quebec's desire for emancipation and affirmation was drowned out by the rest of Canada, which is made up of people arriving from around the world.

Our goal is to reaffirm that Quebec is nation, that we have the right to exist and that we have the right to be different from Canada.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C‑245, which seeks to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

I want to begin by saying that I have the deepest respect for my Bloc Québécois colleagues and that I personally share our profound attachment, as Quebeckers, to our language, our culture and our identity. That being said, I consider this bill a mistake, both for Quebec and for Canada.

Today's debate concerns more than a mere legal issue. It concerns how we choose to live together in this country—with respect, openness and solidarity. It concerns whether our differences should keep us apart or bring us closer together.

We can start by clearly reminding everyone that Quebec is a nation. The House recognized this fact almost 20 years ago, and it was not mere token recognition. Quebec's distinct identity, French language, history, secularism and civic values are an integral part of Canada's character.

Furthermore, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act already recognizes that reality. Section 3 states that implementation of multiculturalism must be consistent with Canada's official languages and must enhance the development of French-speaking and English-speaking communities. In other words, multiculturalism does not ignore Quebec's distinctiveness; it includes it.

Multiculturalism and bilingualism are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Bilingualism protects our two official languages and multiculturalism guarantees that whatever their background, Canadians can fully contribute to the shared society we are building together.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was never meant to erase or replace one culture. Its purpose has always been to ensure that no individual has to renounce who they are to feel at home in Canada.

Multiculturalism is not a threat in a country that has welcomed immigrants, refugees and newcomers for generations, a country founded on indigenous lands and enriched through people from all over the world. It is what brings us together. It is not an ideology that divides us, but a principle that brings people together.

Multiculturalism affirms that it is possible to be proudly Quebecker and proudly Muslim, Haitian, Japanese, Jewish or Sikh and that identity is not a zero-sum game. The goal was never to create a patchwork of solitudes, but rather, a community that is based on equality and respect.

It is true that my native province of Quebec has developed its own model of integration that it calls interculturalism. The model emphasizes the French language as the civic language and encourages participation in a shared public culture.

The model is credible, commendable and fully aligned with Canadian multiculturalism. There is nothing in the federal bill that would prevent that. In fact, the Canada–Québec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens already gives Quebec expanded powers over the selection and integration of newcomers.

The real question today then is not whether Quebec should promote French or determine its own course with regard to integration—it is already doing that. The question is whether Quebeckers should be denied federal recognition of diversity, the very principle that allows Quebec to thrive within Canada.

This bill would do just that. It would tell the whole world that diversity is a Canadian value, except for those of us who live in Quebec. This message does not do anyone any good. It weakens the voice of Quebec and tarnishes Canada's image as an inclusive and democratic society.

The Bloc Québécois is framing this debate as a choice: multiculturalism or Quebec's survival. I completely reject this false dichotomy. Yes, the French language in Quebec is fragile and must be protected. However, its future does not depend on whether or not the Canadian Multiculturalism Act applies in Quebec. It depends on demographic vitality, economic choices, linguistic habits, and the strength of our francophone institutions.

Exempting Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act will not result in French being spoken more widely. It will not strengthen language laws, will not improve education in French, will not support the promotion of Quebec culture, and will not guarantee greater francophone immigration.

What it will do is send a signal that Quebec stands apart, that it rejects a principle that has helped make Canada one of the most respected countries in the world. Cultural confidence is not built by putting up legislative walls. It is built through pride, education, and the active promotion of the language and culture that unite us.

We must remember that Canadian multiculturalism arose out of a very specific challenge: reconciling diversity in a vast country comprising two official languages, indigenous peoples, and successive waves of immigration.

The 1988 act is the continuation of a policy put in place in 1971 by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It recognized that Canada was not a cultural monolith, but rather a common home for many peoples. Far from erasing French, it made it one of the pillars of our national identity.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed under Brian Mulroney, a prime minister from Quebec. Mr. Mulroney was a Conservative from Baie‑Comeau who, like me, understood full well the importance of Quebec's role within Canada.

This is a good reminder for us that this question goes beyond partisan divisions. It goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. Canadian multiculturalism has enabled us to fight against racism, exclusion and discrimination. It has opened the doors to generations of Canadians who would otherwise have felt marginalized. It has also inspired other countries to follow our example of inclusion. Nothing is ever perfect, but this model remains one of our greatest collective strengths. We must defend it and apply it to ensure the successful integration of newcomers and a good quality of life for all Canadians who have forged our multiculturalism.

If this bill were to pass, it would cause confusion and fragmentation. Citizens of the same federation would be subject to two different recognition frameworks: one where diversity is protected by laws and the other where it is not. In practical terms, this would create two classes of citizenship: multicultural citizenship for the rest of the country and citizenship without that recognition for Quebec.

What would be the result? Quebec already has all the tools it needs to manage immigration and promote French. It has its own ministry, its own integration programs and its own charter of values. This bill would not make any real difference aside from creating more division and misunderstandings.

I stand here as a proud Quebecker. I am also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages. The Bloc Québécois says that it wants to protect Quebec's identity, and I am also here to do that. However, I also want to protect something just as precious: our shared Canadian identity, which is based on respect, openness and solidarity.

Multiculturalism is not some abstract political ideology. It reflects Canadian reality. My colleague gave some wonderful examples, such as La Bolduc and Boucar Diouf. Simply walk down Saint-Laurent Boulevard in Montreal, or make your way through Toronto's Portuguese neighbourhood, Chinatown in Vancouver and the Filipino communities in Winnipeg, or visit the Black Cultural Centre for Nova Scotia in Halifax. These places are not separate worlds. They are threads woven together, creating the fabric that is Canada.

Quebec's francophone culture is not just another frayed thread that is part of this fabric. It is a building block. It roots us in our history, our creativity and our beautiful language. Excluding Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act would be tantamount to saying that recognizing diversity is incompatible with its identity. I certainly do not believe that. I know some amazing artists, teachers and community leaders in Quebec that prove exactly the opposite every day. They show that we can be proudly francophone and deeply rooted in that Quebec pride while remaining open to the world.

Our country has always progressed through dialogue, compromise, and respect. We have rightly recognized Quebec as a nation within a united Canada. We have recognized the rights of indigenous peoples and the contributions of newcomers. We have proven that our two official languages and our diverse cultures can coexist not despite their differences, but because of them.

Bill C‑245 would set us back. It would replace co-operation with confrontation, pride with resentment, and openness with isolation. If we truly believe that Quebec is a nation within Canada, then we must also believe that Quebeckers are entitled to the same principles of equality, inclusion, and diversity as all Canadians. Let us oppose this bill, not out of disrespect for Quebec, but out of respect for what we have built together. Let us reaffirm that Quebec's culture, language, and identity flourish best not by distancing themselves from Canada, but by participating fully in it. It is a distinct and essential voice in a country that celebrates all voices.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest Quebeckers, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, the little guy from Baie-Comeau, who was very proud of his Irish heritage and the exceptional welcome the Quebec nation gave his family, helped define this nation. It was under his leadership, as prime minister, that Canada passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988.

Essentially, the spirit of Mr. Mulroney's law is to send a message around the world that, regardless of where you came from or when you arrived in Canada, you are Canadian and you contribute to the wealth of this country. No matter where you come from, the opportunities are there and everyone is equal among equals. That is multiculturalism as conceived in Mr. Mulroney's mind.

He said in 1988 that multiculturalism is an affirmation of our commitment that Canadians of all origins have equal rights and equal opportunities in this country. That is the Conservative vision of Brian Mulroney, a great Quebecker who assumed the role of prime minister with honour and dignity after receiving the support of a majority of Canadians, not once, but twice. That is the spirit of multiculturalism, and it is win-win for all Canadians.

It cannot be overstated that Mr. Mulroney truly embodied what Canada is all about. His roots may have been Irish, but the little guy from Baie‑Comeau was just as comfortable on the main street of Baie‑Comeau as he was in downtown Toronto. That was Mr. Mulroney's strength and power. His experiences and his laws made him the poster boy for multiculturalism.

We are also very proud of the approach that another great Canadian, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, took on the topic of multiculturalism. This is what he had to say about this topic:

[Multiculturalism means] celebrat[ing] our nation's rich multicultural heritage.

Canada is a nation of immigrants. For more than 400 years...[t]hey have added immeasurably to every community in which they have settled. And they have laid the foundation for the Canada we know and love today ‑ a nation that is strong, united, independent....

In the 21st century...[a]nd every year, our country benefits from the arrival of thousands of men and women drawn by the equality of opportunity that exists here.

That is multiculturalism with net benefits. It is inclusive multiculturalism. It is multiculturalism that ensures that everyone is welcome. It is true that it applies right across Canada, in particular in Quebec, with all its national pride. That is why, under the leadership of prime minister Stephen Harper, Canada adopted a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation. This is very important. While some people believe that Quebec is rightfully a nation, this does not in any way erase Canada's multicultural reality. They are not mutually exclusive.

I would remind the House that there was some friction when this motion was debated and passed in this House in November 2006. That is normal; it is a feature of public debate. Initially, some parties supported the motion while others were against it. We heard a future prime minister say that he opposed it, but in the end he did not really know which way to vote. That is part of debate. However, the recognition of the Quebec nation within a united Canada clearly defines the pride we all have as Canadians, but also the pride we all feel as Quebeckers. The two are not mutually exclusive. One allows the other to thrive and take charge of its destiny, as recognized by the motion on the Quebec nation.

All I want to say is that everything was going well until 10 years ago. Ten years ago, Canadians decided to put the Liberal Party in power. For 10 years, we have seen an erosion of the multiculturalism that united Canadians, recognized the Quebec nation, and affirmed that all Canadians were equal, no more, no less, and that they contributed to this country. However, for more than 10 years, we had a prime minister who unfortunately had a completely different approach.

Let us not forget that this government shamelessly stated that Canada was the first postnational country. The prime minister said he was the leader of a postnational government. One would be hard pressed to find a more embarrassing statement. For 10 years, this was the prevailing approach in the Liberal government.

Let us also not forget that, throughout it all, we had a prime minister and a government that was more prone to issuing apologies than to celebrating our successes. It got to be embarrassing. This does not in any way absolve us of the responsibility we all bear for the errors made during our history. This is what led Prime Minister Harper to extend a full and sincere apology to the first nations for what happened at the residential schools. It is also what led Prime Minister Mulroney to recognize the wrongs that had been committed against the Japanese and Chinese communities in earlier times.

It became embarrassing after a while to hear the Liberal prime minister making formal apologies nearly every month. Can we not also celebrate our successes? This went on for 10 years, not to mention that history was also being erased and our heroes were being maligned. We cannot escape our history by disparaging and erasing it. On the contrary, we have to explain it, understand it and learn from it. We will certainly not learn anything by disparaging our ancestors or other figures and pretending that the past never happened.

In my opinion, what offended Canadians the most over the past 10 years of this Liberal government was the flagrant attack on our heritage and our history when symbols of our history and our Canadian unity were erased from the passport. Nothing is more precious to Canadians than our passport. When I look at mine, I think of everything that was erased from it: Samuel de Champlain; the Fathers of Confederation; the great railway; Captain Bernier, who explored Canada's north; the richness of the Prairies; Pier 21 in Nova Scotia; the Canadian Parliament; Niagara Falls; Vimy, one of the greatest Canadian military achievements of all time; Quebec City, which hits pretty close to home; the RCMP; and the two cups that we all rally around, the Stanley Cup and the Grey Cup. If there had been an image of Major League Baseball, they might have removed that too, even though we are going to win the World Series. Worst of all, this Liberal government erased that great and extraordinary Canadian, Terry Fox, from the passport. That is 10 years of Liberal wokeism in a nutshell.

Then the Liberals act surprised when people have doubts about multiculturalism. That is the legacy of 10 years of Liberal rule. The Liberals tried to erase Canada's identity. That was not the intent of the great Quebecker and Canadian Brian Mulroney in 1998, but that is what happened. For years and decades, under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, we recognized Quebec as a nation and Quebec was able to assert that position without any issue, but unfortunately, we also saw that the Liberals were trying to drown out this Canadian pride in some very delicate situations.

I am the son of immigrants. I am very proud of my roots. Like hundreds of thousands of Canadians, I am proud of my origins, which are not part of the deep roots of this country. My parents chose Canada, and Canada chose them. However, what have we seen in recent years? Unfortunately, we have seen a reckless approach to immigration, leading to concerns that have nothing to do with multiculturalism but that have had very real impacts. I cannot emphasize enough that immigrants themselves are the primary victims of this sad and unfortunate approach to immigration, the primary victims of the Liberals' mismanagement over the past 10 years.

Let us celebrate our country, the Quebec nation and who we are as Quebeckers and Canadians. Let us celebrate this great heritage and, most importantly, let us celebrate the fact that we live in a country that is full of opportunity. For that, we have to stand up proudly for our identity—as a Quebecker who is proud of the Quebec nation, in my case—so that all Canadians can achieve their full potential with the Conservative approach that we had for years and that was in keeping with the spirit of the great Brian Mulroney's law.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for tabling this bill, which shows once again that the Bloc Québécois really listens to what Quebeckers want.

What do Quebeckers want? What the current Government of Quebec and the vast majority of the Quebec National Assembly want is for Quebec to be able to choose its own integration model. Even though, like my colleague, I am calling on the other parties to support our bill, I must admit that I have some doubts about whether our efforts will pan out.

I have had the honour of representing the people of Drummond for six years, but I have never seen a speech change the position of a federal party in the House of Commons, no matter how eloquent, relevant, articulate, well argued and reasonable the speech was and no matter how good the arguments in it were.

We proposed that prayer be replaced by a moment of reflection and that parliamentarians be allowed to say a silent prayer of their choice, but no, we were not allowed to touch that, just as we were not allowed to touch the monarchy, the position of Governor General, multiculturalism, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the exception of section 33. We do want to touch section 33, the notwithstanding clause. Canada has its sacred cows.

Quebec has always said that multiculturalism does not work for it. Ottawa sees that as an attack on the federal government and on Canada's identity, even though multiculturalism is just one option among many, one possible way to live together in a society. Social mores can change over time if people take time to think and reflect. People have the right to question concepts.

In Quebec, the simple truth is that multiculturalism has never worked. Quebec is the only nation of its kind in the world. It is inhabited by eight million francophones on a continent of almost 400 million anglophones. Demographically speaking, we should have disappeared over time. It is true that Quebec is a historical anomaly, and this has been said before.

Nevertheless, Quebec needs all possible tools to survive, starting with independence. The federal government could have been an ally to the phenomenon of Quebec, or what I would even go as far as to call the miracle of Quebec. Ottawa could also have used its powers to allow Quebec's distinct identity to develop. Members will recall the “Meech Lake-Charlottetown” fiasco. Instead, Ottawa is hindering Quebec and undermining Quebec's efforts to create a unifying Quebec culture.

One of Ottawa's worst attacks on the Quebec nation, on what we are collectively, is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism flies in the face of the Quebec phenomenon and the existence of a common culture. That is the reality.

On the Government of Canada website, in the “Canadian Identity and Society” section, there is a page that says that multiculturalism “ensures that all citizens maintain their identities [and] take pride in their ancestry”. In other words, there is no point in integrating.

In Quebec, multiculturalism is not a policy of integration, it is a policy of disintegration. It is a policy that creates a fragmented society where people who come from diverse cultures merely exist side by side, instead of allowing for the development of a society that integrates newcomers in order to enrich a common culture—the key word being “enrich”.

The truth is that multiculturalism rejects the idea of a common culture by fostering the coexistence of multiple cultures. Although it is defined as a model of integration, it actually promotes cohabitation based on indifference or even tolerance, rather than respect for differences, and this invariably leads to ghettoization.

Out of fear that multiculturalism could cause society to fracture into separate solitudes, Quebec has always rejected the Canadian approach, especially because it trivializes Quebec's place within Canada, contrary to what many of my colleagues here claim. It denies the very existence of the Quebec nation, contrary once again to what has been said in the House on several occasions.

As far back as 1971, Robert Bourassa wrote in a letter to Pierre Elliott Trudeau that “that notion hardly seems compatible with Quebec's reality”. It was true 50 years ago, and it is just as true today. As we can see from the Quebec government's rejection of multiculturalism, Quebec's focus is on integration.

Cultural pluralism, cultural diversity, provides riches to be shared. Quebec's approach is that we should get to know one another better, talk to one another and build a society together. To do that, we have to get along.

That is why Quebec asks immigrants to recognize the French fact, to learn the French language and to acknowledge that it is the language of our shared spaces. That is why Quebec also insists on the need to respect the key foundations of Quebec society, such as the separation of church and state, gender equality, and the existence of a historical cultural heritage. That heritage is multicultural, but not multiculturalist. There is a difference.

Before 2003, there was even talk of a civil pact. The Quebec model of integration goes beyond simple citizenship designed to promote the development and peaceful coexistence of cultural minorities in a vacuum by bringing these minorities to enter the symbolic and institutional space occupied by the nation. In other words, contrary to Canada's approach, which talks about preserving the identity of minorities without integration, Quebec's approach supports integration based on the learning of the French language, the official language and language common to the citizenry, and on the adherence to a set of fundamental principles.

According to the Quebec department of immigration and cultural communities:

An intercultural society's challenge is a collective one: to ensure harmony by maintaining and adopting the values and principles of action that unite all citizens. This challenge is met with respect for individual, cultural and religious differences.

There is no better example to illustrate the difference between Canada's approach and Quebec's approach.

Quebec is a French-speaking, democratic and pluralist society based on the rule of law, which means that everyone has the same value and dignity as well as the same right to protection under the law. Knowledge and respect for the values of Quebec society are necessary for adapting to Quebec's environment and fully participating in it. Integration is achieved through full participation, which multiculturalism inhibits.

In a February 2008 article in Le Monde diplomatique, Louise Beaudoin explained why the Quebec integration model and the Canadian one are incompatible:

For nearly 30 years, Canada and Quebec have had two [completely] different approaches to integration. The federal multiculturalism policy, which is modelled on the British approach, promotes cultural diversity based on ethnicity and encourages people to seek out their own community of origin. In contrast, Quebec opted for a model based on interculturalism, a cultural exchange within the framework of the common values of a pluralistic nation with a francophone majority. These two clearly conflicting visions are irreconcilable.

This is confusing to newcomers. They see Quebec as a French-speaking nation that exists within a bilingual country that promotes bilingualism. It prides itself on an approach to welcoming and integrating newcomers that focuses on the importance of certain basic values and upholds French as the language of the people. This conflicts with the definition of a Canada that presents itself as bilingual and multicultural.

In its preliminary submission to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec highlighted this confusion:

However, the efforts made by the Government of Quebec to define and promote its own model of integration came up against the ideology of multiculturalism, which was sometimes interpreted by certain groups as the possibility of living one's own culture according to the rationale of separate development....the ideological way of thinking that emerged in the 1970s, which presented society as a mosaic of cultures, has since been encouraging certain groups to develop beliefs that clash with Quebec's vision.

People arriving in Quebec receive two contradictory messages. Instead of laying blame, as some are wont to do, the Bloc Québécois thinks it would be better to make the messages clearer. In their February 8, 2007, manifesto entitled “En finir avec le multiculturalisme”, Quebec intellectuals Charles Courtois, Dominic Courtois, Robert Laplante, Danic Parenteau and Guillaume Rousseau stated the following:

We think that Quebeckers want to see the principles of equality and public secularism affirmed, putting the emphasis on a common culture and providing inspiration for the principles of integration and the methods of dispute resolution. The Charter of the French Language already does this in part, but in order to do so fully, Quebec needs to have its own citizenship.... For now, new Quebeckers are sworn in as new Canadian citizens without being encouraged to integrate into the Quebec nation. This is not what inclusion means to Quebec.

This is why it is important for Quebec to have maximum flexibility in enforcing its own citizenship and integration policy. We believe that Quebec will not truly be free until it becomes independent. This will put an end to the mixed messages. Immigrants who choose Quebec will no longer be coming to a Canadian province, but to a francophone country. Until then, however, Quebec must be exempted from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

That is why I am very proud to support Bill C-245, which my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères introduced in the House this morning.

[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 speak to the issue of multiculturalism. Many years ago I was appointed the responsibility of tourism in the province of Manitoba. One of the challenges I was provided was to attend all the pavilions Winnipeg offers in the summertime during Folklorama. It was like visiting 40-some nations in a two-week period.

The reason I say that is that it showcased what I believe, and what I suspect we will find a majority of members believe, which is that the diversity Canada has to offer the world is one of the greatest assets and strongest strengths we have as a nation. I look at what is being proposed by the Bloc Party in two ways: One is the motivation for bringing forward the legislation, and the other is the whole issue of diversity.

I reflect on Canada as a nation. I have made reference in the past to the fact that generations ago, my family originated from the province of Quebec. Today I have siblings who live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. I have a sister who has in the past lived in the province of Quebec. I have a sister who has lived in the province of Newfoundland. No matter where one goes in Canada, I believe it is its diversity that defines how great our nation is today and the potential it can have into tomorrow. I will give some specific examples of that.

When I think of multiculturalism, I think of tolerance. A week ago I posted something on Facebook, and the response I received was actually quite upsetting. A group of gentlemen from our Indo-Canadian community was playing a game of Seep, and I was there. I posted about it because I thought it was a wonderful thing to see a group of people aged 55-plus playing this wonderful game.

The racial comments on the post, the hatred in what was said in words, many of which I would not dare repeat inside the chamber, were very upsetting. When I looked into the backgrounds of most of the people who were making the negative comments, I saw that they came from a sector of society in Canada that is very much close-minded with respect to what I believe our Canadian values are, one of which is that we should be very proud of our diversity.

I think of multiculturalism as one of the things that highlights Canada and gives it an identity we can share around the world. Our values are ultimately one of the reasons Canada is a desired country to immigrate to. That is something we should all, collectively, be very supportive of.

The Bloc makes reference to Quebec as a province or as a nation. I, too, understand its distinctness and nationhood, and I do support the French language. In my home province today, as diverse as it is, the fastest-growing communities are probably our Indo-Canadian community, our Filipino heritage community and, to a certain degree, our Ukrainian heritage community. Those are the fastest-growing communities today in the province of Quebec.

The French language in Manitoba is a success story. Never have we had as many people speaking French in Manitoba as we do today. I would encourage members, in particular Bloc members, to visit Winnipeg, check out St. Boniface and visit some of the rural communities, like St-Pierre-Jolys, where I have family members who were born in Quebec and came to St-Pierre-Jolys.

The French language is part of our Canadian identity. What the Bloc tries to seat as fear is, I would suggest, the opposite. If someone goes to a school in the north end, they will find that there are not many people of French descent, but there are many of Filipino heritage, and they are learning to speak French at school.

When we hear members of other ethnic origins speaking the French language, I see that as a strong positive, because they are recognizing what Canada is: a bilingual country. Canadians do not have to live in Quebec to appreciate and value the arts and heritage in Quebec. We see in Manitoba a respect and passion for Quebec.

At the end of the day, I truly believe that with the values Canadian have, they are very supportive of multiculturalism, because they see multiculturalism as an issue of diversity and something we should be celebrating. I can speak about the city of Winnipeg, which I have had the opportunity to live in and call home for a vast majority of the years I have lived. Not only is it a community that values the French language, but a growing number of people are speaking French there.

When I go to a citizenship court and witness people of all backgrounds and diversities singing the national anthem for the first time as Canadian citizens, I see the multicultural fabric that makes up our society, which each and every one us should be proud of, like those who have just been sworn in. That is not just one occasion. Those who attend the citizenship ceremonies will see that. They will see the respect for indigenous people and the respect for the distinct nature that all regions of our country bring together, along with the value of the English language and French language.

We should celebrate our nation, recognizing what people outside of Canada—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member will have a minute and four seconds the next time the House considers this matter.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 24 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

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to get up again to speak to Bill C-3, now in its amended form from committee, on behalf of the great constituents of the wheat city in western Manitoba.

I find the discussion that has taken place on Bill C-3, since it came back from committee with amendments, fairly startling. We are going to get into a discussion about the amendments that were approved in a multipartisan fashion at committee, but some of the comments coming from those on the government side have been alarming. They say this bill was required by a lower-court decision so we should absolutely agree to everything the court said.

Some members opposite have even commented that Parliament is not supreme in its ability to make laws on the citizenship question and once a court has made a decision at all. We know that is factually incorrect. In fact, my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill cited subsection 91(25) of the Constitution in her speech, which specifically discusses that Parliament has the power to make decisions regarding the provisions of citizenship in this country. The facts around that are clear. Whether the Liberal government is going to accept them and accept the amendments that were approved at committee remains to be seen.

We know the government has made a lot of comments about being a listening government and about wanting to work together more collaboratively. The Liberals are often griping about previous parliaments and the fact that no one wanted to work together with them. We have an opportunity here. Two other official parties in this place have come together and moved some fairly simple, basic and agreeable amendments to a government bill. We sincerely hope that the Liberal government is going to approve them and move this bill forward in an adequate and appropriate way for Canadians.

We know that the national identity of Canada is constantly under threat. We see commentary on all kinds of different ideals about postnationalism and globalism and what it means to be a Canadian citizen, and how being a Canadian and how Canada as a whole fit into that context. The biggest concern I am hearing from Canadians is with respect to the value of Canadian citizenship and what amount of value we place on being a Canadian citizen in an increasingly interconnected and interrelated world.

This bill, in its initial form, was pretty bonkers; that is the first word that comes to my mind. I do not understand the concept of citizenship that goes on and on, with multiple generations that have no connection to this country and, in many cases, that have barely or never been here, generation after generation.

I have family who have moved overseas, to anywhere from Europe to the South Pacific, and they are having children overseas. I know they are going to make sure those children have a connection to this country because they believe that being Canadian means something. It is not just words and a piece of paper. It is about a connection to this place, the actual physical space of this country, and the people who call it home and make up our nation as a community of diverse individuals. If they expect their grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be Canadian, they will make sure they spend time in this country. Even if they choose to live abroad, which is of course their right, they will make sure those relatives have a connection to this country.

What are the amendments we have put forward that the Liberals are so upset about? For citizenship by descent, an amendment was approved saying that citizenship would not be granted to persons when “neither of the person's parents who was a citizen was physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person's birth”. That would be for citizenship by descent and by adoption. That 1,095 days is not an onerous length of time to expect someone, who was perhaps born abroad themselves and received citizenship, to spend in this country to pass citizenship to the next generation.

There are language provisions. We have two official languages in this country, and I should just pause here to thank my colleagues on the citizenship and immigration committee, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who was joined by the members for Saskatoon West, Markham—Unionville and Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, for the excellent work they did in putting forward fairly common-sense amendments to this bill.

I also thank my colleagues in the Bloc. Those folks are not typically standing up for Canadian citizenship. By definition, they are a separatist party that wants Quebec to be a different country in and of itself, but even they can see how badly the bill, as it was presented to Parliament by the Liberals, devalued the value of Canadian citizenship. Even Bloc members are concerned about this, so they worked with us to defend language rights and expect people who are applying for citizenship through descent or by adoption to know one of the official languages. That is a fairly common-sense, reasonable request. I would expect most Canadians to believe that as well. Whether the Liberals do, I guess we will see, but I certainly think the vast majority of Canadians expect someone who is becoming a citizen of this country to know either English or French.

We also know that an amendment approved at committee talks about having knowledge of Canada. I was just talking about the example of my own family. Going forward, many generations that have lived abroad and have never spent any time in Canada at all, under the way this bill was presented by the Liberals originally, would automatically be citizens of this country. We believe that is a choice that has to be made with an understanding of the country that someone is a citizen of.

This is very simple. People should take a citizenship test or knowledge test based on the citizenship guide. We expect other people applying for citizenship to take one. I do not think that is unreasonable. It is actually pretty normal to expect that. In fact, as Bill C-3 was originally presented, we would have been the only country in the G7 to grant citizenship in the fashion it noted. None of our allies, the most developed economies and countries in the world, would have had a citizenship provision like the Liberals presented originally.

As such, we amended the bill to add a citizenship provision so that people would have to declare that they do not believe in barbaric cultural practices, like, for example, female genital mutilation and other severe violence. We understand in this country that when someone wants to escape a terrible situation in the country they are in, when they are an immigrant, they need to leave the conflicts of the country they came from. That is not an unreasonable request, and we believe that should be applied to anyone who is obtaining Canadian citizenship from any path.

These are pretty basic bars that have been amended into this bill in a multipartisan fashion, but the main point is that we believe on this side of the House that Canadian citizenship has value, and with that value comes responsibilities and rights. It does not mean a blank slate. There are expectations of Canadian citizens, regardless of how people obtain citizenship, and they need to be outlined, which is why we have amended this bill.

There are adoptive provisions in this bill for people who are adopted that we agree with completely, but we need to make sure there is a discussion happening in Parliament, not just decisions made by judges, about the expectations and responsibilities of people obtaining Canadian citizenship. We feel that these amendments do that, and we know our colleagues in the Bloc agree. Being a Canadian citizen matters. It has value in the world, and we understand that folks who want to be Canadian citizens would be affected by the provisions of this bill, so let us make sure they are joining the citizenry of this country in the right way.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill seeks to correct an historic injustice by allowing people to pass on their citizenship to their children in the future. One of the amendments made by my committee colleagues concerns the length of residence: Instead of the three non-consecutive years that were initially required, it would now be three consecutive years out of five. However, I would like to understand why, for example, someone who lived in Canada for two years as a student, returned to their home country, and then came back—as is often the case in 2025, where realities are different—might not be eligible.

Sometimes people work abroad for a few years, come back to Canada for a year, go away again and then return. They may have spent several years in Canada during a significant time in their lives, either for school or for work, but according to the proposed amendment, they would not be able to pass on their citizenship to their children if they did not reside in Canada for three consecutive years out of five. Could my colleague explain the reasons behind this change?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for starters, on the lost Canadians piece, I would say to my colleague across the way that we agree with those provisions, and this is why we did not amend that part of the bill. That provision stands. I think our Conservative comments at committee stand for themselves.

With respect to his example of someone who is globe-trotting and here for school, away for school, here for a job, back for a job, etc., that person would still have spent the amount of time required by the bill in the country with their going back and forth, whether it is for school or for work. Their children would have citizenship under the provisions of the bill. That is already clear in the bill.

We do not think that 1,095 days out of a five-year period is an unreasonable expectation. We certainly hope the Liberals will support that.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, approximately 150,000 new people would get citizenship, which means that they would also get the right to vote.

A Conservative member raised an interesting point last week in this regard: We still do not know how it will be determined in which riding these people will be registered and vote. That could become an issue if there is a close race in certain ridings.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think our concern is certainly the 150,000 people at a time when our immigration system is already overwhelmed. There is no question that the Liberals have absolutely broken Canada's immigration system. Even they recognized that under Justin Trudeau and decided they were going to make some public statements about curbing the flow of immigration into the country. Now they are waffling on that, walking that back and trying to pretend that the last eight years of their record did not happen.

We are concerned about the impact on our housing system and our health care system. As my colleague mentioned, where people choose to register as citizens, if they choose to spend time here, will have an impact on those systems.

There are a lot of provisions, which is why one of the amendments in the bill is a requirement of the minister to report where these people are registering and how many people have obtained citizenship through the bill.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned in his speech that there was a court ruling from an Ontario court that precipitated this whole discussion, so I have a two-part question here.

First, why does he think the government did not appeal the decision? That seems like a strange decision from the government. Was it smart or not smart?

Second, there needs to be a substantial connection according to the court ruling, which makes a little bit of sense. Our suggestion would be to have maybe a better substantial connection than what the government has proposed.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, it was a mistake not to appeal that court decision at the lower court level when it was rendered. There could have been a much better framework put out than Bill C-3.

Unfortunately, the Liberals just threw up their hands because they seem to prefer not to make challenging decisions and to blame the courts when things do not go their way. We have seen that with other issues, and we are seeing it again with immigration. That is the weak way out.

We believe there is a better path. Colleagues such as the hon. member have done an excellent job of putting that forward with these amendments to Bill C-3.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

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.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for attempting to explain the Liberals' position on this.

First off, I want to once again mention that it was very silly of the government not to challenge the lower court ruling to be able to be in control of the situation. It just demonstrates the government's typical desire to let the courts make the decisions so it does not have to make the hard decisions.

The average Canadian listening hears that the government put a condition on this of 1,095 days for the parent to be in Canada. Canadians see conditions. Conservatives proposed some additional conditions, such as language, for example. If the minister is imposing conditions on this form of citizenship, why not also add language? Language is so important, whether it is English or French, in this country. Why would the minister just skip over something as important as language and only put the condition of 1,095 days?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member has a very informed question and was at the committee when I was there. I respect the manner he always presents himself and his respectful question.

Again, we respect Canada's institutions. The courts are those institutions, and the fact is that this legislation would remedy what the court said was unconstitutional. If we do not do anything, it would mean that citizenship by descent would go on in perpetuity. I know no one in Parliament wants that.

We believe we have introduced a reasonable limit of 1,095 days, which would give people the time to build a substantial connection to and feel part of Canada. This is important. The majority of people who would fall under this would be those who were not remedied in the 2009 legislation or the 2015 legislation, which means most of them will have been born after 2015. Most of them will be 16 years of age and younger. I ask members to keep that in mind.