Debates of Oct. 28th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the proud Canadians in the welcoming riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

If anyone is curious about the history of immigration in Canada, they need only drive up the Ottawa Valley. Leaving behind our indigenous-named capital city and the suburbs with English and French names, we begin to see the Scottish influence in places like McNab. Then come the Irish names, such as Shamrock and Mount St. Patrick, followed by the Kashubian names in Wilno. If people continue to drive, they can join Oktoberfest in Pembroke with German schnitzel. Then they can stop in Petawawa for authentic Lebanese cuisine or can celebrate Diwali in Deep River.

This journey is more than scenic; it is a living testament to the resilience of those who chose Canada as their home. Each community tells a story of migration, settlement and contribution. Successive waves of people came to Canada, built communities and enriched our nation. They brought with them traditions, languages and values that have become a part of our national fabric.

Canadians were proud of our welcoming immigration system. It was a system built on fairness, compassion and a shared commitment to building a better future. Then the Liberal Party broke it.

Some have accused the Liberals of breaking immigration for electoral reasons, but given the recent election results, with elbows-up nativists flocking to the Liberal banner and new Canadians, tired of having their cars stolen and businesses burned down, rushing to our party, that theory does not hold up well. The real reason the Liberals broke our immigration system is that they broke our economy.

After strangling our resource economy with red tape and regulation, the GDP began to decline, so the Liberals made the decision to goose the stats by importing growth. It was a textbook Trudeau policy: It looked progressive on the surface, but underneath it was a system of exploitation designed to inflate GDP numbers and home prices. This approach ignored long-term consequences; placed pressure on housing, infrastructure and social services; created divisions in communities; and undermined public confidence.

Now the Liberals want to continue this decade-long effort to undermine our system by granting citizenship to the great-grandchildren of those who left this country decades ago. They claim it is about fairness and inclusion, but fairness must be balanced with responsibility. Citizenship is not a souvenir. It is a commitment to Canada and a pledge to uphold our laws, respect our institutions and contribute to our society.

The Liberals' version of Bill C-3 would allow citizenship to be passed on with minimal connection to Canada. That is not fairness; it is recklessness. It devalues the meaning of citizenship. It sends the message that Canadian identity can be inherited without engagement.

As Conservatives, we cannot sit by and watch the Liberals vandalize the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Canadians, in their wisdom, decided not to grant a majority mandate to an inexperienced, rookie Prime Minister who just happens to be a citizen of three separate countries. The government must work through the legislative process, and it must respect that democratic process. The Liberals cannot claim to defend Canadian citizenship while ignoring our parliamentary democracy. The government must adopt the bill as amended.

Under our proposed changes, in order to gain citizenship, a parent must have a real connection to Canada by living here for at least three years within a five-year period. The Liberals want it to be three years across a lifetime. That is a loophole, not a standard.

We have also proposed that to gain citizenship, applicants must have some proficiency in either English or French, be able to pass a citizenship test and complete security screening. These are reasonable measures supported by a majority of committee members. They reflect the expectations of Canadians and would ensure that new citizens are prepared to participate fully in our society.

Our amendments introduce a substantial connection test: A parent must have lived in Canada for 1,095 days before a child's birth or adoption. This would ensure that citizenship is passed on by those who have truly lived here. It is not enough to have visited Canada decades ago. Citizenship must reflect a real and recent connection. We also require language proficiency. It is not a barrier; it is a bridge to integration. It helps newcomers succeed in school, work and civic life.

We require a citizenship test; this ensures that citizens understand our values and our institutions. It fosters a sense of belonging and shared purpose. We require a security screening; this protects Canadians from people who may pose a threat. It is a basic safeguard in any responsible immigration system.

These are not radical ideas; they are common sense. They are supported by a majority of committee members. They are supported by Canadians across this country.

Unfortunately it looks like the socialist coalition is back. After Canadians rightly punished the NDP for propping up a long-despised government, it lost party status. Now the socialists are cooking up a backroom deal to keep the investment banker in power. They want to roll back our common-sense amendments. They want to pass a bill that would open the door to instant citizenship. They want to ignore the lessons of history. They want to ignore the will of Canadians.

We will not let that happen. We will stand up for the integrity of our citizenship laws. We will stand up for the values that unite us. What would this mean in practice?

Let us consider Elon Musk. His mother was born in Canada. He was born in South Africa. Based on available reports, he spent just under three years in Canada between 1989 and 1992 before transferring to a university in the United States. Since then, he has fathered 14 children that we know of. Eight of those children were born to Canadian mothers. They are already Canadian citizens, regardless of what happens in the legislation.

It is the other six children who would be impacted by the bill. If our common-sense amendments are rejected by the Liberal-NDP coalition, Elon could secure citizenship for his children by vacationing in Canada for a few months. If he has already accumulated three years of residency in the last 40 years, all six children would be instant citizens the day the bill comes into effect.

It should warm the hearts of Canadians to know that the NDP is fighting for the rights of billionaire nepo babies. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Musk kids would be joined by 150,000 other instant Canadians. This would not be not a hypothetical scenario; it would be a real and immediate consequence. It is a policy failure waiting to happen.

The Ontario Superior Court ruled in 2023 that the first-generation limit was unconstitutional. The Liberals refused to appeal the decision. lnstead, Bill C-3 is their response. The bill would remove the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent. lt would also restore citizenship to lost Canadians who were excluded due to outdated laws or administrative errors. We support restoring fairness to those who were wrongfully excluded, but we must not create new problems in the process.

The government's approach is to expand access without ensuring accountability. This Liberal approach has real-world consequences. When Liberals undermine faith in our immigration system and Canadian citizenship is eroded, it erodes our sense of solidarity. It undermines trust, not just trust in the system but also trust in one another. Societies high in trust are low in crime and chaos. We used to be that society. We used to be a haven in a dangerous world. We can be that beacon of hope once again. All it takes is for the Liberal Party to listen to what Canadians are saying and work with us to fix the system.

We believe in a system that rewards genuine connection and commitment. We believe in a system that reflects the values of Canadians. We believe in a system that respects our democracy. Citizenship is not a gift to be handed out lightly; it is a bond between the individual and the nation. lt must be earned, it must be respected and it must be protected. That is what our amendments would do. That is what Canadians expect. That is what we will deliver.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to members opposite when they reference the issue of why there are amendments and how they were at committee. The hon. member referred specifically to a so-called coalition that does not exist. The only coalition I have seen with respect to the legislation is the unholy coalition of the Bloc and the Conservatives, and yes, they were able to use their coalition to make some amendments.

Now the issue is, would the member not agree, that if a majority of members of the House of Commons, which would include those from other political entities, do not support the amendments, they have the right to defeat them?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point of this debate is that people who are applying for Canadian citizenship must have an established connection to Canada. That is the basis on which we are debating, and we are aiming to improve the bill by amending it with those conditions. Without further ado, we should get the bill passed with amendments, not without.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is happening today in the House is quite bizarre. The government has decided to completely disregard all of the committee's work. However, they claim to be transparent and to be working democratically by respecting the opposition parties.

This is not how that works. Members used House resources, which are paid for with public money, to carry out their work, but since it did not line up with the government's ideological vision, it got tossed aside.

Obviously, there is one party that needs to be named: the New Democratic Party. They are trying to form alliances with the government, which they want to support once again for possibly strategic and ideological reasons.

I would like my colleague to share her thoughts about the fact that the government is repeating what it has done in recent years with the support of the NDP, which is to say, disrespecting the will of the committee and the House.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right.

We will vote with the Bloc on a case-by-case basis, or with the government if we feel that the legislation warrants it. However, what the Liberals have re-established is the NDP-Liberal coalition so they can pass anything they want, regardless of what the rest of the House deems proper.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, through the years, the Liberals have debased our immigration system and our citizenship, whether by flooding the country with foreign students or by being lax on criminals' being allowed in the country.

I wonder what the member thinks of the Liberals' stance on Bill C-3 and whether it would devalue the overall value of being a Canadian.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what my speech was all about: having a value to citizenship. It is not something a person can buy from some consultant who has no scruples; it is something a person works for and earns.

My grandparents and my mother came from Holland. It took studying and learning the language, and they were quite proud to finally be accepted as Canadians. The rest of the people who want to be Canadians should be too.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member correctly noted in her speech that high-trust societies are typically more safe and more prosperous. It is indeed the type of society that works the best, and one which Canada and all members of the chamber should aspire to be.

I wonder if the member would comment on whether or not she thinks it contributes to producing a high-trust society in Canada to support groups of people who blockade the national capital and call for the overthrow of the federal government. Does lying and calling for the incarceration of former prime ministers increase trust in our society? Does calling law enforcement and the leadership of the RCMP “despicable” increase trust in Canadian society?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we have somebody who, along with the former prime minister, asked to defund the police.

What we are promoting in our amendments is that there be a security check, a background check, to make sure that people who have committed crimes in other countries do not come into Canada and automatically become Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Northern Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill C-3. As is my habit, I will talk about what I like in the bill, and then I will talk about what I do not like in the bill.

Let us start with what I like. According to the first part of the bill, there would be a restoration of citizenship to people who lost it due to non-application. People born between February 15, 1977 and April 16, 1981, when they turned 28, were supposed to reapply for their citizenship. If they did not apply, they lost it. They do not think that is right.

Senator Yonah Martin brought Bill S-245 to address this specific issue. Unfortunately, it did not get through the House before another election was called, so I am glad to see that provision come back here. The people in question are in their golden years at this point. It is better late than never, but that is a part of the bill that I appreciate.

The second part of the bill that I appreciate is the provision for adopted children. Currently they have to go through a permanent residency process, which can take three years. Under the provision in Bill C-3, they would be treated as Canadian-born citizens for the purpose of passing on citizenship. I think that is a good thing for families. There is no reason, when children who are going to be part of our Canadian context are adopted, that they would not get their citizenship, so I think that is a good provision.

One of the things about the bill is that there would not be the connection test that the courts prescribed. I have heard the Liberals, through this debate, talk about how they have a deadline from the courts, so that they have to do something. They chose not to appeal the lower-court decision. Getting the legislation on time without the connection test that the court demanded would not fix it either.

I think it is important that people who get Canadian citizenship fall into categories; They are born here, or they are descendants of a Canadian citizen, or they are permanent residents who apply for and receive citizenship, or they are people who have a connection and go through the process. There should not be a two-tiered process; the rules to become a citizen should be the same.

If someone is going to be a Canadian citizen, I think it has to mean something. We think about the value of citizenship, and it is really about participating in our democracy, experiencing our wonderful country, helping build our communities, paying taxes and using our services so we understand what the state of our nation is. All these things are part of being a Canadian citizen and having that value.

I worry that if people are away from the country for a long period of time, they are going to lose that connectedness. If they have never lived here, they really do not have that connectedness at all. That is a concern to me, especially when we think about one of the unintended consequences of the bill. The bill would grant citizenship to people whose parents spent 1,095 days in Canada over, as it now stands, an unspecified amount of time. They may never have lived here.

Such people would be able to vote in our country. The way that voters are normally registered is that they have to have a Canadian address so we can figure out what riding they are in. That is how Elections Canada does it. We would now have 150,000 people who could choose where they want their vote to count. I really find that to be an undermining of our democracy in terms of an interference factor with which it would be possible to game the system, for example. That needs to be addressed, and it is not addressed in Bill C-3 at all.

Bill C-3 went to committee, where there were some thoughtful amendments that were brought into place, really, to align the citizenship process in Bill C-3 with what other people who are becoming Canadian citizens normally go through. The amendments would apply both to descendants and to people who come by adoption. They would need to be able to speak one of the official languages at least. That makes sense to me, especially if they are going to receive services here and interact with the government, which publishes its notifications in both official languages.

They would also have to have a security check, the same security check that others are supposed to go through. We can see that, in an increasingly violent world, it is more important than ever to make sure we are not allowing criminals and terrorists into the country. The only way to do that is to make sure there is a security check and it is thorough. Again, this makes sense.

There is a provision that was amended at committee to say it should not be just 1,095 days that parents lived here over any number of decades. It should be a concentrated period of time so they have a commitment to Canada. The suggestion was that it be five years. I think that is a reasonable limit. It reflects some of the previous legislation we have seen. To me, that is a good-sense amendment as well.

Then there is the citizenship test. This comes close to the connectedness the court was looking for. People who are coming here to be Canadian citizens would have to learn something about the history of Canada and the cultural norms in Canada, and take and pass a test. That is also a reasonable amendment.

After doing all this great work at committee, the NDP has now introduced amendments that would essentially reverse all that good work, and the Liberals are going to support them to basically wipe it out. For the last 10 years, I have heard the Liberals stand up and talk about how they value the work done at committee and respect the independence of the committee process, but here they are totally turning things around.

Let us keep in mind that 98% of the Canadian people did not elect the NDP to provide our rules and legislation. It got 2% representation, so it should not be able to overturn the rest of the House. First of all, that is not representative of what the Canadian people want, but also, the NDP is trying to take out all the amendments. We would have a two-tier system where some people coming here to get citizenship have many requirements, and others just automatically get it.

The other problematic thing for me is knowing that this could happen in perpetuity. If the children who get citizenship show up during their lifetime for 1,095 days, they can pass citizenship on to their children. We do not know how many people are involved in this or how much in resources it is going to take to do it. We already know that the immigration system is backed up, and it is taking three years or more to process people's applications. Putting an extra burden on the immigration department is not a good idea, and I really think it disrespects and undervalues Canadian citizenship.

The coalition we saw between the NDP and the Liberals to force their will on all Canadians in the last Parliament is popping up again, and they are going to team up together to put in a bad bill instead of doing the right thing and aligning the process to be fair to all.

Certainly, I love to see immigrants come to the country. They have helped build the country. The member who spoke before me talked about her heritage. My heritage is English, French, Irish and Scottish. I am a little tall, so there may be Viking in there somewhere. These different cultures have all come together, and we see more and more of that. This was always about the multiculturalism of Canada. The freedom we had here and the way everybody could get along is what made Canada great. A two-tiered system would undercut that and divide us, which is what the Liberals have been doing for the last 10 years.

With that, I will just summarize and say that there are some good elements in the bill, but I recommend the government send it back to committee, or keep the amendments the committee passed if it really respects the work of committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only coalition I see with respect to this legislation is the unholy coalition of the Bloc and the Conservative Party. Let us be perfectly clear on that. This is the reason variations have been made with respect to Bill C-3.

I made reference to the Supreme Court decision dealing with the issue of background checks not being required for lost Canadians before they would be given their citizenship. Does the member distinguish any difference between someone having birthright access to citizenship and someone who is naturalized in order to get citizenship?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that there is co-operation happening between the Bloc and the Conservatives, and the Liberals have been calling for co-operation since the parliamentary session began. I would have thought the member would be happy to see co-operation happening. It has resulted in this great bill.

To his question on the lost citizens who would be restored in one of the measures in this bill, he should keep in mind they had citizenship. I understand why they do not need another background check, but for everyone who else is coming here in whatever way they are coming, we need to do background checks to make sure they are not criminals or terrorists so we can ensure the safety of the people of Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague from Winnipeg North of something. Perhaps he does not spend enough time in the House to realize that it was his government that, with the support of the Conservative Party, imposed a gag order on the House last June regarding Bill C‑5, a bill on projects of national interest. After several months, we still do not know what the projects of national interest are.

I think it would be good to refresh my colleague's memory. Quebec's motto is Je me souviens. Perhaps my colleague still does not understand what it means, even after many years in the House, but I make it my duty to remind him.

I would like my Conservative colleague to share what she thinks of what the government is doing right now. Once again, it is dismissing the committee's work with the support of the NDP through the back door. The NDP is just trying to survive politically and is virtually invisible in the current political sphere.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have always said that they respected the work of committees. Right now, they are not respecting it at all because they have scrapped all the amendments we made in committee.

The government is in a coalition with the NDP to reverse all the good work we have done. That is not fair.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin my question, I want to recognize that 20 years ago my wife decided to date me and how blessed and fortunate I have been for those 20 years. I thank my wife for that. I did not forget.

I wonder if my colleague is aware that at the Vancouver airport, for instance, up to 20% of people who are screening new immigrants or people coming into Canada are students with three weeks of training. That is it. Is this what we expect from the CBSA when it comes to screening in people who might have criminal or terrorist backgrounds? Does she have any thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, happy anniversary to the member and his lovely wife Odette. I hope he bought flowers.

I am very concerned about the immigration system, because there have been numerous occasions when the Liberals have forfeited security checks. I can remember when visas from Mexico were preventing some of the cartels from moving in, and the Liberals removed them against our advice. Then the cartels did move in, and the Liberals put those requirements back in place.

We have had people coming in from war-torn areas, and they are claiming they do not have any paperwork because they are from war-torn areas, and then there is no security clearance. These areas are rife with crime, corruption and terrorism. Not only am I concerned that the process does not exist, but if there are people who do not have any experience and do not even know the process, it will only get worse.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today with respect to Bill C-3 to highlight some of the real problems with the government's approach to immigration.

We have seen, over the last 10 years, the profound failures of the government's approach to immigration. Rather than confront those failures, the government is proposing legislation that would further weaken our immigration system. We have grave concerns about the approach the Liberals are taking and how they have tried to deceptively bundle weakening provisions with a few things that we proposed in the past. They have bundled some of those good propositions with the significant problems they have integrated into this bill that will weaken Canadian citizenship. I will lay that out in a few minutes. I want to start by highlighting the context of where we are with immigration and how it relates to some of the work I have been doing as the Conservative shadow minister for jobs.

Members know or should know that we have a serious metastasizing youth unemployment crisis facing this country. The nature of that crisis is simply that youth unemployment is now at 14.7%. The numbers have continued to grow, approaching a 15% youth unemployment rate. Over 460,000 young Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 are presently unemployed, so, yes, it is a youth unemployment crisis. Not only have the Liberals been asleep at the switch, but their policies have been making the problem worse. They do not have a plan to address it. They do not have a plan to reverse the damage their policies have done.

We have put forward a Conservative youth jobs plan. There are four elements to that youth jobs plan: unleash the Canadian economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are.

Let us focus particularly on the subject of today's debate, which is immigration. The Liberals have broken our immigration system. They have failed to align our immigration system with the needs of our labour market. There are many ways in which this is evident. We had economists testify before the human resources committee about how Liberal immigration policies have exacerbated competition for entry-level positions while failing to identify the skills we need and bringing people in to fill those skills.

One area where this is quite evident is the Liberal failures on credential recognition. When we fail to have an effective credential recognition system for newcomers, it hurts our job market in two ways. When someone comes with a skill they could be using to fill an essential skill gap but is instead forced to work an entry-level job, that person is not filling the area where a skill is needed. Meanwhile, they are competing with a young person for an entry-level position. It is a loss for those trying to enter the workforce, who are facing more competition, and a loss for employers looking for people they can identify at higher skill levels.

Effective credential recognition is critical. Identifying people with the right credentials and qualifying people to work when they come to Canada are critical for aligning our immigration system with the needs of our labour market, yet we have seen over the last 10 years a persistent failure to do this.

We have all heard the stories of people with incredible qualifications who come to Canada and work entry-level jobs just to get by and provide for their families. I want to salute the sacrifice and virtue of the individuals who are willing to do that. At the same time, it is a broken system that forces people to be in that situation when they have credentials they could be using to benefit our country and are not.

I found it quite interesting that recently, the Liberal minister responsible for this area announced the intention to create a new fund to try to solve this problem without appreciating or acknowledging that an existing federal fund is supposed to be doing this. Maybe the minister should acknowledge it. Rather than creating a separate fund on top of the existing fund, we should hear what the minister thinks of the performance of the existing fund.

Clearly, there has been a failure to address this issue of credentials recognition, which is exacerbating the challenges we see in youth unemployment. Conservatives have been highlighting this issue of credentials recognition as an important way to resolve challenges we see across our economy. We have proposed a number of different programs and methods that would force results, instead of pouring more money into the problem without a clear direction or vision of how it will be solved.

If we have one fund that is supposed to be doing this, why are they creating an additional fund that is supposed to be doing the same thing as the first? I would love to know what results the minister thinks that replication of an existing structure is going to achieve. Canadians are not interested in more Liberal announcements. They are interested in a real plan that will deliver results.

We have profound failures in immigration that need to be fixed. I would love to see the government put forward legislation to address some of these problems in the immigration system.

By the way, when the immigration issue was brought up at the human resources committee, the Liberals objected, saying it is not related to the committee's mandate. The human resources committee is supposed to be studying the impacts of various policies on youth unemployment. The Liberals do not want to talk about one of the primary causes of youth unemployment, which, according to economists, is an immigration system that is poorly aligned with our labour market.

Needless to say, prior to the government being in power, there was a consensus in support of an immigration system that was fair, generous, worked well and aligned well with the needs of our country. We can help the most vulnerable and defend and advance our economic interests. It takes focus, discipline and precision, which the government has not had. Thus, in the last 10 years, the government wrecked the consensus we had around support for what was at the time a well-managed, effective and generous immigration system.

Here we are today. We need to fix immigration, and we especially need to align our immigration system with the economic needs of our country. Instead of putting forward a plan to fix immigration to align it with the needs of our economy, we have this legislation. The Liberals want to put in place a framework that would allow a family to live outside Canada, generation after generation, with no limit, and continue to pass on Canadian citizenship infinitely, provided that people visit Canada during that period of time.

The Liberals' priority is not to clean up the mess they created in immigration or make the system more effective, efficient or aligned with our interests, but to provide a further expansion of the ability of people who might not have any substantial connection to Canada yet have some Canadian ancestry to gain citizenship.

The legislation is particularly poorly aligned with what Canada is supposed to be about. Canada is supposed to be about the fact that citizenship is not based on ancestry but on a commitment individuals make to this place and to each other. That is what our citizenship is supposed to be about. As Cartier said, we are one political nation. We are not defined by common ancestry; rather, we are defined by being one common community that includes people of different linguistic, religious and ethnocultural backgrounds.

The bill says that if I move out of Canada, it would be possible for my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren after them to continue to be Canadian citizens, provided that in each generation, people make a few extended visits to this country. That does not align with the best of our tradition. It is a further diminishment of what common citizenship is supposed to be about, which is being a community of people from diverse backgrounds who are committed to advancing and defending the common good together.

We need to go back to a stronger sense of Canadian citizenship based on shared attachment and a commitment to the common good.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely looking forward to November 12. Maybe we will talk about immigration then too.

The member spent a great deal of time talking about immigration. The Conservative leader's approach to the issue today is very different from ours. The Prime Minister talks about stabilizing our numbers and working toward having the strongest economy in the G7. The Conservatives' answer to the immigration issue is that if a person's temporary visa is going to expire, they need to leave the country. Getting rid of them is the Conservative Party leader's approach.

Would the member not agree that the universal principle being applied by the Conservatives is not healthy for all regions of the country? I am thinking about rural communities in Canada and the entire province of Manitoba. The provincial government in Manitoba wants to be able to retain and see—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I need to give the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan the chance to respond.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of gross misstatement of our position that members have come to expect from the member for Winnipeg North. We are going to be debating against each other in Winnipeg on November 12. The member has committed to booking the hall and picking me up at the airport, so I am looking forward to that. We will continue this conversation.

I will pick up on one thing the member said and highlight the absurdity of it. He said the Prime Minister is committed to “stabilizing our numbers”. The Liberals have been here for 10 years, and they want to say now that they are committed to stabilizing the numbers, without any acknowledgement of how they became unstable in the first place. It was not some act of nature that destabilized the immigration numbers and now the Prime Minister is going to come in and fix them. No. It was their 10 years of failure that led to the mess we have, and now the best they can say is they are going to try to fix it.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is concerning is that, in committee, we asked how many people might be impacted by this measure, and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship was unable to answer the question. She did not know.

One of the effects of the amendments proposed by the Liberals and the New Democrats is to remove the requirement to produce reports that indicate how many people will actually be affected by this measure.

Does my colleague have an idea of how many people could be affected by this measure? What does he think of this amendment, which simply removes the government's obligation to be accountable?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is an important and legitimate question. Do I know the answer? No, because it is obviously the government's job to answer that question.

They decided to introduce this bill. They should therefore be able to answer reasonable questions. How many people will be affected by these changes? What impact will this have on employment or on the health care system? There are other examples.

It is clear that the government has not taken these impacts into consideration.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering about the Liberals' tone and attitude in this debate.

First, they are trying to turn the debate on Bill C‑3 into a debate on immigration, when it is a debate on the conditions that lead to citizenship.

A few seconds ago, the member for Winnipeg North stood up and said that the opposition was out of touch. However, the minister was invited to appear before the committee and was asked about the impact of the bill as it stood before the amendments. All she was asked was how many people would be affected by this measure. We are accused of being out of touch, but the minister showed up at committee and had no idea how many people would be affected. She told us that this figure was impossible to determine. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that this measure could affect about 115,000 people and that this figure could even be as high as 300,000.

I would like my colleague to tell me who is out of touch here.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question.

I think that ministers have to be able to answer reasonable questions about the effects of their bill. This is not an opposition bill we are talking about; it is a choice made by the government. It chose this path even though it had a number of other options in the field of immigration and citizenship.

However, the government is unable to answer basic questions about implementing its own proposal.