Debates of Oct. 28th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House, but I must say I rise today in utter sorrow to speak about Bill C-3 and what could have been. I had the honour of speaking about this bill at second reading, and I poured my heart into that speech.

I spoke in French for the first time in the House during my last speech to highlight that Canada is not a postnational state. On the contrary, it is a blend of two peoples, one French and one English. It is unique in the world. Our unique heritage must be respected to maintain the value of our citizenship. Canada is strong because Canadians work hard to make it strong. That is why we object to a two-tier citizenship system. If the children of people who left want to come back, let them come after they pay our taxes, obey our laws and learn our languages. It is not complicated.

Would anyone believe that the first thing that happened after my speech was the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government leader in the House standing and saying, “voters want more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons”? I agreed. He said we should vote for Bill C-3, allow it to go to committee and pass amendments to make it a better law. I am new here, and it is perhaps for this reason that I took him at his word. I voted for Bill C-3, and at committee, Conservatives brought forward excellent amendments to make a better law.

Shortly after that speech, I did an interview with the local CBC syndicate radio station in Kitchener-Waterloo. The host, Craig Norris, asked me what I was working on and whether there were opportunities to co-operate with the Liberals in the House. I immediately spoke about Bill C-3 and my honest belief that the Liberals would allow us to remediate this law through amendments at committee. That is why I stand in sorrow today. It seems the rug has been pulled out from under us.

Those following at home will recall that Bill C-3, before amendments, would have allowed the grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren of Canadian citizens who had left the country to claim Canadian citizenship, even if they had barely lived here, had criminal records, did not speak either of our official languages or had never paid our taxes or contributed to our civil society by working or living here. Even if they had no intention of ever coming here, except to use our health care system in a pinch, they could become Canadian citizens.

In short, the bill would make Canadian citizenship out to be some sort of free goodie bag to be passed around, rather than a treasured family heirloom, but that goodie bag is not free. It is only the hard work of the Canadian citizens, permanent residents and refugees who build their lives here and build the country to make the country strong that is filling up these goodie bags the Liberals want to recklessly pass out.

It is estimated that in excess of 100,000 such free goodie bags, containing free citizenship for people who do not live here, would be handed out if the unamended law passes. We say it is estimated to be more than 100,000, but as the hon. member who asked a question just pointed out, the immigration minister says she has no idea how many more beyond 100,000 it could be.

Obviously, this would be terribly unfair to the permanent residents who are here paying taxes, respecting our laws, learning our languages and working so hard to become Canadian citizens. It is so unfair for them to have to watch 100,000 people who are not doing those things skip the line as a matter of unearned privilege. That is what we mean when we talk about a citizenship system of two tiers. Our amendments seek to level the playing field and prevent a two-tiered system from being imposed. It is with an eye to this that we structured our amendments. We used the exact same language for the same criteria that permanent residents have to fulfill.

They are eminently sensible amendments. For a person to get citizenship as the grandchild of a Canadian citizen, one of their parents must have lived in Canada for five years, they must pass a citizenship test and a security background check and they must speak one or both of our official languages to prove their substantial connection to our country. I believe the voters who want to see co-operation in this House, as referenced by the member for Winnipeg North, would want to see co-operation on each of these points.

I cannot understand how anyone except the most radical postnational ideologues, who, like Justin Trudeau, believe that Canada has no core identity, could oppose these amendments.

The new Prime Minister promised change, and voters gave him a tentative mandate as a minority Parliament on the promise of change, yet here he is, enacting Justin Trudeau's insane postnationalist ideology.

I went through the Liberal Party's 2025 election platform. Nowhere in that document could I find any proposition to give away 100,000-plus citizenships to people who have never lived here, who do not speak our languages or who might have criminal records, without passing the citizenship test. This is an absolute bait and switch. It is not what the Liberals ran on.

The new Prime Minister promised change, but here he is, reheating Justin Trudeau's radical ideological agenda to make Canada a postnational state with no core identity. This bill, in fact, existed in Justin Trudeau's last Parliament, but he could not get it through, because the House was seized with the matter of his corrupt green slush fund. This is not a one-off; this is a pattern. Bill C-8 is also a re-warmed piece of extreme government overreach that Justin Trudeau also tried to pass through this House. Once again, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The new Prime Minister promised change, but he is feeding us microwaved Justin Trudeau leftovers.

It has been six months since the last election, in which the Prime Minister promised change. He leveraged all his credibility as a lifelong bureaucrat who had been waiting in the wings to get Canadians to believe that promise. However, here we are, still debating Justin Trudeau legislation six months later. I suppose the Liberals are taking these six months to frantically prepare a budget that is also six months late.

Speaking of the election, I knocked on every door in Kitchener South—Hespeler during the spring election. I know for a fact that all the Conservative voters who voted for me would find these amendments eminently sensible and necessary.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble hearing myself speak over the very co-operative member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

For the umpteenth time, I think the member for Winnipeg North could quiet down and let my colleague finish his speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the member for that reminder.

Members who wish to say something have to wait another three minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler can continue.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I think he is just trying to co-operate very hard, as promised.

Mr. Speaker, I also know that Liberal voters, the ones who did not vote for me, the ones who were enamoured by the new Prime Minister's promise of change, would find these to be eminently sensible amendments that are necessary. Therefore, I am shocked. I cannot understand why the Liberal House leadership has signalled that the Liberals will vote against these amendments. In so doing, they would cheapen the value of Canadian citizenship, betray the permanent residents and refugees who are working so hard to meet similar requirements, betray the generations of Canadians who work to build Canada strong and betray their own voters, who expected change from Justin Trudeau's woke radical agenda.

I have more time, but I do not think I even need it. I would rather hear from the Liberals. I am dying to hear from the Liberal members in the House today which of these amendments they could possibly be planning to vote against. Will they stand up in this House and say which ones, and why? I am as eager to explain this to their voters as the Liberals are eager to hide it.

If the Liberals pass the unamended Bill C-3, I will have a very, very hard time explaining to their voters why on earth they took our amendments away. I will have a very hard time explaining to Craig Norris of the Kitchener-Waterloo CBC radio program why it is that, after this promise of co-operation, it was withheld and the rug was so abruptly pulled out from under us.

If, conversely, it is the case that the Liberals are not willing to say which of these amendments they plan on voting against, then I implore them that there is still time. They can do the right thing. They can side with us, the Conservatives, to protect the value of Canadian citizenship, instead of siding with the radical left to denigrate it.

I thank the members for the co-operation I see coming up.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member does not appreciate the fact that they have a Conservative-Bloc coalition on this legislation going through the committee. Just because the Bloc-Conservative coalition makes a determination, that does not mean it should be able to override a potential Supreme Court issue. Just because the Bloc and the Conservatives decide that they want an election, by voting against the budget that is coming up, that does not mean there has to be an election, if there are other members in the chamber who support the budget. Because there is that unholy coalition at times, I would suggest to the member, if what I said is true, that they look at consensus and work with committees, not try to see how they can corner or change the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt to give the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler a chance to respond.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for continuing to engage so co-operatively. However, I did not catch a question, so I will take it as a comment.

There are Liberals, Bloc members and Conservatives on the committee. The member suggested that we take the bill to committee and all work together. Two parties did, but one did not, and one party seeks to undo the work of the committee now. I am not sure what else the member would have had us do when he suggested we take it to committee and work on it together.

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

Mr. Speaker, on immigration, there needs to be consistency between the various legislative measures.

Those hoping to become naturalized have to fulfill certain requirements. They are required to have lived in the country for 1,095 days over a period of five years. A security assessment is done, a language test is administered, and a citizenship test is completed. Those are the rules.

That is exactly why want we want the same criteria to be applied when normalizing the citizenship of people who may never have set foot on Canadian soil.

I would like my colleague to explain to me how the government can come to the conclusion that these standards are valid for a naturalized person, but that in the situation before us, suddenly, they no longer make sense, and citizenship could be granted to almost anyone.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am perplexed, like the hon. member who made the comment. Probably the best thing for me to do is to sit down, because I am still dying to hear from Liberal members. I have not yet heard which of these amendments they are planning to vote against and why. Is it the case that they are planning to vote against? All I heard in the questions so far from the Liberal member was denigration of the members of the committee based on party stripe, which is exactly the opposite of what he thought voters were looking to see when we read this at second reading.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one issue we have with Bill C-3 is that the government has no idea how many people would actually be affected by it. How many people would receive citizenship immediately or would be affected down the road and thus be a cost to Canadians, both in our health care and in other benefits?

I wonder if my colleague could tell me what he thinks of the seriousness of the government, which is trying to plow through Bill C-3 without taking these implications into the process.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It allows me to reprise the core theme of my first speech on the bill, which is that Canadian citizenship has value insofar as Canadian citizens contribute value. We put money into the pot, and then when we need our health care system, it is there for us.

However, to say that 100,000 individuals who have never been to Canada, but whose grandparents were Canadian citizens and left, can come here for free health care or evacuation help from our embassy if a conflict arises, fundamentally misunderstands how citizenship works and how value is built. I find that particularly ironic given that the Prime Minister, who is ramming this through, wrote a book on values. He is an economist, yet he does not seem to understand the economy of value. We have value in citizenship only when we work hard together to build it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of citizenship is one I have heard about on more than one occasion from constituents concerned with how our laws impact their status. It is one about which we as parliamentarians are called upon to make decisions and establish rules that will, by their nature, exclude some people.

Canada, like all countries, has regulations surrounding who is automatically granted citizenship. At present, while citizenship is granted to children born outside Canada to Canadian citizens, those children do not have the right to pass on their citizenship to their children if those children are born outside Canada.

This amendment to the Citizenship Act would address that issue. Specifically, this bill would amend the Citizenship Act to do the following:

(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;

(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person's birth;

(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;

(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person's adoption;

(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and

(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.

Like many members of this House, I have been present at ceremonies when new citizens have pledged their allegiance to Canada. It is always an exciting occasion, one filled with smiles and joy. I am always reminded of the time, decades ago, when I was taking the oath.

I am a proud Canadian. I chose to come here. I chose to become a Canadian citizen and embrace Canadian values. I have no regrets. It is a privilege to be a citizen of the greatest country in the world. It is a privilege to have been asked by the people of Edmonton Manning to represent them in this House.

For most of those not born here, Canadian citizenship is not a right, nor should it be. When it comes to citizenship, each country makes its own rules. Canada grants citizenship automatically to anyone born in this country. That is not the case in a number of countries, which expect children born in their territory to be citizens of whatever country their parents are from.

Whether one system is better than another is a matter of preference, but the fact remains that countries have to make choices and establish laws surrounding who is and who is not a citizen. Do we want to grant citizenship generation after generation to those who have no real connection to this country and for whom a Canadian passport is a matter of convenience? This legislation would allow that. We would have Canadian citizens who have never set foot in Canada. Is that what we want?

In 2009, Canada established a first-generation limit on citizenship. Those born abroad to Canadian citizens would automatically be granted citizenship. The next generation, though, if also born outside Canada, would not automatically be citizens. That system worked well, balancing the granting of citizenship with a true connection to the country. I do not see a need to change that. Perhaps we in this House need a history lesson to help us understand why we have the citizenship rules we have today.

In the mid-2000s, the crisis in Lebanon caused many Lebanese Canadians to pass citizenship on to their children for the purpose of relocating to Canada, even though these individuals have little to no connection to Canada. Then, in 2006, the Canadian government spent $94 million on the evacuation of 15,000 Lebanese Canadians. These people who benefited from Canadian citizenship with minimal connection to Canada became known as “Canadians of convenience”. We know that $94 million is a lot of money.

In 2009, the government, led by former prime minister Stephen Harper, addressed concerns about Canadians of convenience, those who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society. This led to the enactment of Bill C-37, which amended the Citizenship Act to restrict the transmission of Canadian citizenship to only one generation born outside Canada. Since then, a Canadian citizen born outside of Canada could pass citizenship on to their children who were born abroad, but the grandchildren, if also born abroad, would not automatically inherit Canadian citizenship unless their parents were abroad in service to the Crown. To me, that makes sense.

I value my citizenship. Being a Canadian should be more than holding just a passport. It should be taking part in the life of the community. I believe that, with rights, we should also have responsibilities. Bill C-3 does not acknowledge that. It would allow parents to pass citizenship on to their children, for generation after generation, as long as one parent spent 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada prior to the birth of the child. There are no criminal checks, which is required for immigrants. This is a multi-generational flow-through citizenship for people who did not live nor are required to live in Canada. No real ties to Canada would be required for citizenship if this legislation were to pass. The vague substantial connection test allows multi-generational foreign residents to claim citizenship with minimal presence in Canada. Is that what we want?

We all are anxiously awaiting the federal budget next month. We already know that the Liberals have changed the bookkeeping procedures in an effort to confuse Canadians and hide what is sure to be a record deficit.

In 2024, the then minister of finance resigned rather than present a fiscally irresponsible statement to the House featuring an astronomical deficit. Given the Liberals' spending since then, this year's deficit may make last year's numbers fiscally prudent, which may explain why they have shown no interest in figuring out how much this bill would cost Canadians. The government has not done a cost analysis as its own officials told MPs during the technical briefing. The government has not told Canadians how many new citizens this bill would create or the cost to taxpayers, especially in health care and in pensions.

We are facing a fiscal crisis and the Liberal response is to pretend it is not happening and to spend more money. Bill C-3 is a reminder of that.

Conservatives believe in strong, fair and meaningful Canadian citizenship. We will continue to oppose giveaways and stand up for integrity, security and a responsible immigration policy for Canada.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, we are once again witnessing disingenuous engagement and fearmongering on the part of the Conservatives, who know very well that this bill is meant to deal with a court case that makes the current system unconstitutional.

I will tell the House who this bill is meant to deal with. My son was born 17 years ago in the United States because I was there studying. My son has lived in Canada most of his life, so I would like to ask the member, is he saying my son is not Canadian enough to pass down his citizenship to his kids if, by happenstance, he happens to have a child outside Canada? Is that what he is saying?

My son is not a terrorist. My son does not need a security background check. Please stop the fearmongering.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very funny and unfortunate that the government asks us to be transparent, but it is not transparent itself. It is bringing forward a bill without giving any information to Canadians. It is as though no accountability and transparency is needed. Before it asks the question of us, it needs to remind itself about what it has done and what it has included in the bill. After that, we will have a conversation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is sad when debates become personal. What we just heard from the parliamentary secretary is rather appalling.

As far as the proposed amendments are concerned, since my colleague has likely spent 1,095 consecutive days in Canada, she would be eligible. Her child may have to take a test to be eligible. I am sure he can pass a test.

I would like to know where in this debate anyone accused another person of being a terrorist. Does this lady realize that she is in a position of executive power? Does she understand the weight of her words? Does she realize how much she is embarrassing her government and how awkward it is?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is the oldest trick of the Liberals. Every time we question them about something they do, they turn it into trying to divide Canadians further, calling us names and trying to narrow the conversation to their level of non-transparency. Unfortunately, that is what they have done here. This is what they have been doing all along. We cannot reject the premises of their questions and their argument because, first and foremost, they have to be transparent and come to Canadians clearly before they can expect anyone to co-operate with them.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue of doing a background check, of really doing a criminal check to ensure the people coming into the country are people who are going to be safe walking around our communities, our schools, our malls or anywhere down the streets near our homes. I really fail to see why the Liberal government does not understand the importance of doing these criminal checks. Under the bill, someone could be born outside the country to someone who was here 30 years ago, have never lived a minute in this country, have never contributed a penny to this country, and expect to come to the country as a full Canadian citizen without giving our country the right to do a background check as to their criminality.

The member opposite in the Liberal party mentioned her family. I am sure she is not concerned about her son passing a criminal test.

I wonder if the member can weigh in on this.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the obvious thing is that this is a government that made a disaster of the immigration policies in Canada. In the last 10 years, it brought in millions of people. It made slavery, a housing crisis, a health crisis and an education crisis. There are crises across the board because of its policies. Now, it has the face to come to Canadians to ask for more citizenships to be granted without any background checks or criminal checks. It has made a disaster out of Canadian society because of its policies, and now, it is still coming forward to present more disasters to Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to speak here today.

This debate is somewhat surreal. I am standing here yet, given the nature of the debate, I feel as though I am somewhere up in the stratosphere, floating in a space shuttle.

We know how Liberals think. Liberals have a switch with two positions: “off” and “on”. They think one thing on Monday, switch to “off” that evening and then to “on” the next day. Then they think something else the following day. They might be in favour of a carbon tax before the election but against it afterwards. What these people do is win elections. They win them by changing their ideas and opinions and by having no values.

I have proof. Yesterday, we were supposed to debate Bill C‑3, but a committee report on ethics came in. We have a Prime Minister who holds shares in more than 900 companies. We know that when Canada subsidizes Westinghouse small modular reactors to increase production in the oil sands, the Prime Minister gets rich. We know that when he abolishes the digital services tax, even though he has a blind trust, he is lining his own pockets. These were legitimate questions.

A report came in from a committee. The illustrious member for Winnipeg North told us, yesterday and all afternoon, that we should be debating Bill C‑3 instead and that the House of Commons is not a place for debate. He told us that we were wasting our time here and that we should let committees do their work, because committees are good, members study the issues there and do good work, and we should not be debating that in the House. The Liberal switch flipped to the “off” position yesterday, and they went to bed.

They woke up the next morning and the reset button switched to the “on” position. They told us that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration studied Bill C‑3, that it heard from witnesses, like the minister and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that there are amendments that do not distort the bill, that are in order and that fulfill the court's requirements.

Today, we are being told that all the committee's work can be torn down. That is the typical Liberal way. They never debate on the substance of the issue. They attack, insult and irritate people, and address substantive issues as little as possible. That is exactly what we are seeing today, and yet we are being told that we are the ones acting in bad faith.

One member even claimed that the Conservatives were treating her child like a terrorist because of these amendments, which are clear. The parliamentary secretary went to study abroad, outside Canada. In her lifetime, over a five-year continuous period, she very likely spent 1,095 consecutive days in Canada. In any case, she has been eligible since the election. Upon their return, the child would have to take a test if he or she is of age. Actually, I wonder if the child was not a minor and if, in the case that had the parliamentary secretary all worked up, any of these amendments applied. Most likely, none of them did. Now she says that her child is being treated like a terrorist.

The member for Bourassa says that we are against immigration. We need rules when it comes to immigration. There are borders. There are rules. It would only be fair if second- and third-generation children had to meet the same requirements for naturalization, but now we are once again being labelled anti-immigration racists.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons says that we are living on another planet. I would like him to say which one.

Since this debate began, not a single Liberal has been able to explain why they oppose these amendments. There were Bloc members and Conservative members. People came prepared to debate. It has been substantive. We have the right to disagree. Those folks over there cannot say why they oppose the amendments.

We have a problem because the work was done in committee. An assessment had to be done. Here is the timeline of events. A court told us that we could not systematically deprive the children of Canadians born abroad of their citizenship. Then the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said that rules were needed, and clear rules at that. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration got to work and decided that it would establish clear rules.

What did the committee members do? They figured they would just apply rules similar to the ones imposed on naturalized Canadians. Is the parliamentary secretary across the way, the one playing with her notes, is she saying that we are calling naturalized people terrorists? Is she saying that she opposes immigration rules for naturalized individuals, like my wife, for example? These are low-level debates. We need not take these things personally.

Things were not great in committee. Our job as opposition parliamentarians is to keep the government in check, so we ask questions. The first question was whether Bill C‑3, in its original form, affected very many people and whether it might allow a bunch of people to apply for citizenship without ever having set foot in Canada. The minister said that that was impossible to estimate.

The minister arrived at committee unprepared. She did not know her bill. She did not know her numbers. The minister seemed to think that her inability to estimate something meant that it was impossible to estimate. If she is unable to build a space shuttle on her own, then space shuttles do not exist. That is how she thinks. The Parliamentary Budget Officer came and told us that this would affect 115,000 people. Economists certainly understand that these things can be estimated. This would affect between 80,000 and 300,000 people with a large confidence interval. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us honestly that it was at least 80,000, but it could be as many as 300,000.

The committee members therefore decided that they would apply rules that are already agreed upon in Canada. If we allow people to have spent 1,095 days of their entire life in Canada without requiring those to be consecutive, that means that a 50-year-old person could have spent their three weeks of vacation here their entire life, without ever having worked or made a significant contribution to the Canadian economy, and the unamended version of the bill would apply to them. Canada is not a summer camp, so it stands to reason that people should be required to have lived here for 1,095 consecutive days.

Proposed amendments called for a background check, as is required for naturalization, and an official language test in French or English. We would prefer French in Quebec, but we are still in Canada. These rules do not even apply to children under the age of 18. To suggest that a Canadian could go study in the United States, have a child there, come back here and leave their child at the border is straight-up disinformation. Could it be that people did not read the bill before coming here to call us names?

What the Ontario Superior Court said in its ruling was that a person born abroad to Canadian parents had to have a substantial connection to Canada and that their parents had to have a substantial connection to Canada. “Substantial” is the operative word for citizenship to be passed on. The question that the committee members then asked themselves was: what is a substantial connection? The court asked for clarity. The court said that not everyone can be rejected outright. The committee therefore put forward the same definition as for naturalized persons. How does it logically occur to a legislator that substantial connection for a person born abroad who comes to Canada is now defined, but that this definition of a substantial connection no longer has any value if the parents of the person born abroad also lived abroad for a long time?

I, for one, believe that these amendments make sense. They are consistent. They align the criteria required by the court with the Citizenship Act, which governs the naturalization process. Saying that we are racist, against immigration, no longer interested in having people study abroad, and depriving the children of Canadian diplomats of their Canadian citizenship is like rejecting the Citizenship Act itself. I think that these amendments make sense, are consistent with the superior court ruling, and need to be passed.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that we are engaging in low-level debate. I would like to remind him that it is kind of the result of everything that has been said in the House.

Earlier this afternoon, a member on the other side of the House said that the Liberal government had removed the Mexican visa regulations to let the cartels in, and that it put those regulations back in place once the cartels were here. Unfortunately, that is where we are with this debate.

My colleague said that the only thing the Liberals are good at is winning elections. I would like to remind my colleague that it is thanks to the Liberal government that we have the Canada we have today, with the social programs we have, including those that benefit all Quebeckers and all other Canadians.

That is all I have to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, do you see what is going on? Insults are being tossed back and forth.

Here are the facts on these amendments. The committee determined that, for a person to be considered to have a substantial connection to Canada, they must have lived in Canada for a certain number of days over a certain period of time. Anyone over the age of 18 has to be able to speak an official language, undergo a security screening, and so on. That, incidentally, is what the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides.

My colleague did say that we were practically attacking her own family. I imagine that she did not mean it but feels emotional about it. In fact, a Canadian student who travels abroad, gives birth, comes back to the country and has a life here is by no means targeted by these amendments.

I said that we have to read bills carefully and be scrupulous parliamentarians, and that is how we improve the quality of our debates. I stand by what I said.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the fact that the government has not even looked at, or cannot quantify, what the costs are going to be.

I have had the pleasure of serving on the operations committee for close to 10 years. My colleague attended as well for a short period. At one time, we had a visiting delegation from Vietnam, from their version of the operations committee. We were looking at a government bill, and the government stated that it had not costed what the bill would cost Canadians. The Communist Party members from Vietnam lectured us, saying that they would never, ever bring forward legislation without knowing what it would cost their citizens.

I wonder what my colleague thinks about Communist Vietnam being more concerned about taxpayers and transparency than the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful for us as parliamentarians to know how many people will be affected by the legislation. The fact that the government says that it has done no calculations whatsoever gives us some idea of just how unprepared it is.

I am concerned that the government is increasingly unwilling to let the opposition know how much things cost. The proof is that it appointed an interim parliamentary budget officer when it had had seven years to find one. A few weeks after appointing him, the Liberals began to publicly disparage him, both during question period and in committee. In committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer presented carefully calculated, evidence-based figures. In response, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue said that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was entitled to his opinion, but that he, the minister, would rather read the newspaper.

I think Canada has lessons to learn. I am not certain that they need to come from communist Vietnam, but we have lessons to learn from many places.