Debates of Oct. 31st, 2025

The House resumed from October 28 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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate. Before I address the substance of this bill, I would like to make two observations.

First, today, October 31, marks the beginning of poppy season, a time when all Canadians remember the great sacrifice, and in too many cases, the ultimate sacrifice, made by the men and women serving in the Canadian military. It is thanks to them that we have lived and, most importantly, continue to live in a free country, a land of freedom where every Canadian is respected. We must always remember the sacrifices of our military personnel. I want to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to my late father, who was a Second World War soldier and veteran.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I thank my colleagues for the applause, but they should save it for my second point, which is even better.

All of Canada will be united tonight. With one voice, we will support the Blue Jays. Tonight, they will beat the other team and bring home baseball's biggest prize. If they should happen to lose tonight, I am not even worried, because they always come back strong. There is no doubt that the Blue Jays are going to win the World Series.

Let me quote the famous slogan from Rogers: “Bring it Home”. It reminds me of something, but I do not know what.

Now I want to talk about Bill C‑3, which deals with an extremely important yet sensitive issue. This bill addresses immigration, citizenship and other delicate situations that must be handled with care. Once again, I am thinking of my parents. I am the son of immigrants. This is a subject that is very close to my heart.

Bill C‑3 replaces Bill C‑71, which was debated during the previous Parliament. It deals with citizenship by descent, lost citizenship and the status of children born abroad. Why was this bill introduced? It was because, in 2009, Stephen Harper's Conservative government introduced the first version of an amendment to the Citizenship Act. It put a limit on the conditions under which citizenship could be automatically granted to foreign children, and this applied to the first generation. There were some heated debates, but the bill was passed.

The act has been upheld to this day. However, the very nature of a law makes it open to challenge, and citizens are entitled to do just that. That is what happened in Ontario in the early 2020s. In 2023, an Ontario judge ruled this law unconstitutional and set the government a deadline for making adjustments. That deadline has been extended repeatedly in light of political events, including the end of a government, an election and the installation of a new government. We are therefore faced with a situation of some urgency considering that we have until November 25, if memory serves, to pass a bill amending the Citizenship Act.

The amendment has to do with the right of the soil. Can a person born on Canadian soil obtain citizenship automatically, within limits? This is a sensitive but fundamental issue that keeps coming up with increasing frequency. It prompted commentator Mario Dumont, among other observers, to write, “The Conservative Party of Canada has kicked off a real debate....Is the right of the soil completely off-limits?” So far, this right has indeed seemed like something carved in stone, beyond the realm of debate. He says that “the right of the soil is no longer off-limits” and that “the Conservatives are right” to take this action.

Bill C-3 addressed this issue, but in our view, it did not address the most sensitive aspects of it that call for serious, humane and political reflection, because we need to consider how this might affect future generations. That is why we had serious reservations about this bill as it was introduced and why we proposed amendments in committee. A total of 11 issues were discussed in committee, based on the amendments we brought forward.

These amendments were supported by the second opposition party, and we are grateful to our Bloc Québécois colleagues. We welcome their support and their endorsement of what we proposed, which related primarily to residence, language, knowledge and security.

One thing is certain. If we fail to properly define certain entry routes and to prioritize responsible immigration, the primary victims of our negligence will be the immigrants themselves. Sadly, we all remember the unfortunate events that have occurred over the past 10 years involving immigration practices that did not always show respect for those arriving.

Citizenship requires even more care. We know what a Canadian passport and Canadian citizenship are worth, so we need to treat it with dignity. We proposed several amendments that the Bloc Québécois supported. These amendments were incorporated into the bill because the committee welcomed them. That is great.

Now the Liberals have decided that they preferred the original version. That is a shame because the work in committee was done properly. It feels like the Liberals are saying that they are not interested in any of that work. Need I remind the government members that they were elected to a minority government? Being in the minority means having to work with opposition parties to find common ground. What common ground did we find with the support and assistance of the Bloc Québécois? We agreed on certain points.

With regard to the residency requirement, the parent must demonstrate continuous physical presence in Canada for the same period of time as that required of an applicant for naturalized citizenship, at any time prior to the birth of the child. This is entirely logical, relevant and practical in the context of the approach we wish to take.

With regard to language requirements, individuals must demonstrate proficiency in one of Canada's two official languages, English or French, unless they are children under the age of 18 or individuals over the age of 54.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things on which I fully agree with the member, and then it gets questionable at the end.

I fully agree that today is an important day. It is a day when we could be wearing poppies to support our men and women of the Canadian Forces, both present and passed, recognizing their heroism and contributions. We are a free nation today because of those who put their lives on the line in the past.

Also, go, Jays, go! This is Canada's baseball team. There is a high sense of excitement from coast to coast to coast. We all hope that the Jays will bring it home and get the World Series.

As for where I disagree with the member, I am sure he will recall that around 2007 or 2008, a report from immigration indicated that people acquiring citizenship via birthright should not have to forego the same procedures as someone who was naturalized, in other words is a permanent resident. I wonder if the member would at the very least agree that if a person is acquiring Canadian citizenship by birthright, they should not have to go through the same procedures as someone getting it through naturalization.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously, I recognize the issue we are debating today, but on the other hand, we have to address the issue of our reality in 2025. Life goes on, and we have to adapt to the reality of the day.

I do not want to be too partisan, but I will be. Over the last 10 years, we have seen a lack of responsibility when we are talking about this specific issue. For good or bad reasons, I think the government is responsible for some of the problems we have to address today. That is why we should have a fresh look at them. Yes, some points were raised during the years my colleague mentioned, but we have to look to the future.

Based on what we see right now, our amendments are very correct. Obviously, colleagues can disagree—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to stop the hon. member there, as we need to get back to questions and comments. We are running out of time.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague. I know he is quite capable of answering more than one.

My first question is this. What does my colleague make of the current situation in Parliament? Two opposition parties worked together in committee to improve a bill, to make it better and more reasonable. Now, with this debate, all the work that was done in committee could be completely tossed aside because the makeup of the House is a little different.

My second question is this. Why does he think this government is rejecting an amendment that we introduced that calls for greater accountability? This transparency would allow us to let everyone in the country know how many new citizens this legislation creates.

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

Madam Speaker, in my speech, I did indeed forget to mention those two very important things, one of which is accountability. Canadians are craving transparency and accountability. We need those things so that we know whether the job is being done right and so that we can make changes along the way, if necessary.

Second, with regard to my esteemed colleague's first question, it is unfortunate to see that the government is setting aside the careful, rigorous work of the committee. That work had the support of the witnesses, who felt that we were taking the right approach. We appreciate the fact that the opposition parties are sometimes able to work together, but in actual fact, we are always working together, all parliamentarians, to make progress for the good of Canada.

I would once again invite my government colleagues to consider the fact that they hold a minority government and that they have, maybe not the obligation, but the constitutional responsibility to find some common ground with the opposition parties for the good of Canada and all Canadians.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, for generations, Canadian citizenship has been a symbol of pride, opportunity and belonging. It has been the envy of the world, a beacon of hope for those seeking freedom, safety and a better life. Countries around the globe have looked to Canada as a model for how to build a fair, compassionate and principled immigration system, but today, that reputation is destroyed. After a decade of Liberal government, Canadians are rightly concerned, not because of the newcomers who arrive here with hope in their hearts and a desire to contribute, but because of a government that has mismanaged our immigration system, neglected its responsibilities and introduced policies that dilute the very value of Canadian citizenship.

In Kitchener Centre, residents are deeply frustrated by the federal government's failure to manage the international student program. What was once a pathway to great Canadian education has become a cautionary tale of neglect and mismanagement. Let us be clear. This failure is not the fault of our citizens or the students who came here in good faith. It is the government that failed to protect the integrity of our education system, and now our community is left to deal with the consequences.

Many first- and second-generation immigrants in Kitchener have shared with me at their doors their deep frustration with the federal government's failed immigration policies. These are individuals and families who came to Canada with hope, worked hard, followed the rules and built lives rooted in contribution and community. Now they feel their reputations are being unfairly tarnished by a government that allowed this system to spiral into dysfunction. They deserve better than to be lumped in with the consequences of Liberal mismanagement. They deserve a government that honours their commitment and protects the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

Let me be clear that this is not the fault of immigrants. It is the fault of a government that has broken the system. While the Liberals broke it, Conservatives will fix it.

Canadians were rightly outraged to learn that a convicted child sex offender listed on the national sex offender registry was granted a Canadian visitor visa despite his criminal history. This individual, who had sexually abused his underage niece, was allowed into our country under the watch of the current federal government.

This is not just a bureaucratic oversight; it is a shocking failure of basic due diligence. A simple background check would have prevented this, yet the government chooses to rely on the self-disclosure of applicants rather than proactively protecting Canadians. This case has shaken public trust, further highlighting how broken our immigration system has become under this leadership. Canadians deserve a government that puts public safety first, not one that allows dangerous individuals to slip through the cracks.

Under the current public safety minister's watch, 599 foreign criminals slated for deportation have gone missing, including 431 convicted of serious crimes such as sexual assault and violent offences. These individuals were under deportation orders but have vanished from the system, exposing alarming gaps in Canada's immigration enforcement and border security.

This is not just a failure of policy; it is a failure of leadership. Canadians deserve to know that those who pose a threat to public safety are being tracked, detained and deported. lnstead, we are seeing a system where dangerous individuals disappear into our communities, unchecked and unaccounted for. This is yet another example of how the Liberal government has lost control of our immigration system, and it is Canadians who are paying the price.

Bill C-3 is just the latest example of the Liberals' misguided approach. lt is a recycled version of Bill C- 71, with portions hijacked from Senator Yonah Martin's thoughtful and targeted Bill S-245. However, instead of building on that work with care and clarity, the Liberals have chosen to abolish the first-generation limit, a measure introduced by former prime minister Stephen Harper in 2009 to prevent the rise of Canadians of convenience. That measure was never about exclusion. It was about ensuring that Canadian citizenship meant something, that it was earned, not inherited, without connection and that it reflected a real and meaningful bond with our country.

Bill C-3 would replace the first-generation limit with a weak substantial connection test: just 1,095 non-consecutive days spent in Canada at any point in a parent's life. There would be no requirement for a criminal background check and no meaningful demonstration of a commitment to Canada.

Let me put that into perspective. Under this bill, a child born abroad could gain Canadian citizenship even if their parent spent just a few months here decades ago. That is not a substantial connection. It is not how we build a strong and united country.

Conservatives believe in restoring citizenship to lost Canadians, those who were unfairly excluded by outdated laws. We support equal treatment for adopted children, ensuring that all families are treated with dignity and fairness. However, we cannot support a bill that goes far beyond these necessary corrections and opens the door to unlimited chain migration, undermining our national identity and creating a two-tier immigration system.

Let us talk about fairness. Immigrants who come to Canada and work hard to earn their citizenship must meet strict residency requirements, pass language and citizenship tests and demonstrate their commitment to Canadian society. They contribute to our communities, our economy and our shared future.

Under Bill C-3, individuals who have never lived here could gain citizenship simply because a parent once did decades ago. That is not fair. It sends the wrong message to newcomers who are doing everything right. It tells them that their hard work is worth less than a technicality.

Residents in Kitchener Centre are frustrated. They see their public services, health care, pensions and housing, everything, under strain. They worry that a surge of new citizens living abroad who have never contributed to Canada will stretch those services every further. That is why Conservatives took action.

At the immigration committee, we worked constructively to amend Bill C-3 and bring common sense back to our citizenship laws. We introduced amendments to ensure prospective citizens by descent or adoption would go through steps similar to those of naturalized citizens.

We have added a residency requirement. Parents would have to demonstrate a consecutive physical presence in Canada equal to that required of naturalized citizens. On language proficiency, they would have to speak English or French unless they are under 18 or over 54. There would be a citizenship test. They would have to understand Canada's history, values and responsibilities. On security screening, they would have to undergo a national security assessment. On transparency, the minister would have to report annually to Parliament on citizenships granted under Bill C-3, which would include country of residence and any exemptions to security screening.

These amendments are not about exclusion; they are about preserving the integrity of Canadian citizenship. They are about ensuring that every new citizen, whether born here or abroad, shares a real connection to Canada and understands what it means to be Canadian.

We must empower newcomers to place the same value on Canadian citizenship that generations before them have held. We must reassure Canadians there is a better way, a way that is fair, principled and rooted in our shared values.

Canadian citizenship is not just a passport; it is a promise, a commitment and a privilege earned through dedication, contribution and connection. Let us protect that promise, let us stand up for fairness and let us fix what the Liberals have broken.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, my wife is a proud University of Waterloo grad, and there are three post-secondary institutions in my riding: McMaster, Mohawk and Redeemer. The member opposite mentioned the international student program. Of course, international students, and post-secondary education in particular, are the responsibility of the provincial government. This issue is mainly unique to Ontario. Will the member opposite acknowledge the responsibility of the Ontario Conservative government in the mismanagement of post-secondary education?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite's wife for being a graduate of our amazing U of W in Kitchener.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberals are not being transparent about what this bill would do and how the chain of migration would bring in extra strain, hurt, crime, and affordability and health care problems, as well as extra wait times at our hospitals. We need to talk more about how the chain migration being proposed in this bill would put extra strain on our country as a whole.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we reflect on the value of Canadian citizenship, I am curious to know my colleague's thoughts on the message the government is sending to Canadians. One of the wonderful things about Canada is that we are a democracy where people get to vote for a representative to send them to Ottawa. When a majority of members vote and make a decision on a piece of legislation, what does it mean to Canadians and those aspiring to be Canadians when the government says that it is not so interested in what the majority of democratically elected representatives say and when the Liberals just want to impose their will against the decision of the majority of parliamentarians, who thoughtfully considered, reviewed and amended the legislation they put forward?

I am very interested in the member's reflections on that.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is something I did not talk about in my speech, and it is incredibly important.

This is a minority government, and opposition parties have worked together to amend this bill. I have to remind the government that it has a minority, and we are working together in opposition and have put time and effort into this. We represent the other voices of Canadians, and it would be very disheartening to Canadians not to hear the voices from the opposition parties, which are working together on this piece of legislation.

I would ask the Liberals to listen to the opposition parties and do what is right.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if we are hearing the Bloc and the Conservatives in essence saying that all members of the House are not equal. I think we have to recognize, whether we want to or not, that there is a New Democratic Party and Green Party presence in the House. I think the statement the member and others in the opposition have made marginalizes the importance of individual members of Parliament.

Does the member not believe that all members should be equal inside the chamber?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that question was just a smokescreen for the fact that the Liberals are not listening to the proper, thought-out amendments being brought forward for this legislation. On that, there is a lack of transparency from the government in not telling Canadians what chain migration is going to do to the systems we currently have in place and what it is going to cost Canadians to do this.

It is time for us to work together and listen to all voices of Canadians—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am, like all members of the House who are not of indigenous background, the child of immigrants. We are all either immigrants ourselves, the children of immigrants or the grandchildren of immigrants. This is where I fit in.

My grandparents came to Canada, and my grandmother came from a place called Bialystok in Poland. She was a Jew. Bialystok had, at the time she left with her parents in 1914, 10,000 people, and the majority, about 70%, were Jewish. When my mother returned to Bialystok in the 1970s, of course, a few things had happened, including the Holocaust and then several decades of Communist rule.

There were no longer enough Jews in that town to form a minyan, which is a 10-man group of people to conduct prayers at the beginning of Sabbath. It is our good fortune that our family was not there because 95% of the Jews were killed. My mother obviously would not have survived that. I am someone who is half Jewish, and it is questionable, depending on which part of Europe one was in, whether I would be have been considered someone slated for extermination or not. This thought crosses my mind when I consider what could have happened.

My grandfather was born in a place called Odobesti, Romania. While 90% of Romanian Jews were killed, Odobesti was far enough into the foothills of the Transylvanian Alps that it was overlooked. When my mother went there in the 1970s, she met with some people from the Jewish community who were able to describe the situation.

I say all of this by way of saying that Canada is the land of hope. It was then for people who were leaving prosecution. In the case of my great-grandfather, who led his family out of Bialystok, he was not trying to escape the Nazis, who did not exist yet. He was trying to escape conscription to the czar's army at the beginning of World War I. My great-grandfather bought a passport from a neighbour, which was obviously an illegal transaction. His family name was Tauber, but the name of the neighbour from whom he purchased the passport was Chaiton. For the rest of their lives, they were known as the Chaiton family.

I say this by way of saying that, even those who come here under conditions that might not meet with what we consider full respect for all laws of all jurisdictions are, nonetheless, often good citizens, and they are welcome here.

If I go to my father's side of the family, who came from Ireland and Scotland, their tale is a little different. They were staying within the British Empire when they migrated, but they had to leave their families and know they would never see them again.

The immigrants who come here today, fresh from, typically now, Asia or Africa, and sometimes Latin America, also, over and over, demonstrate a deep respect and love for this country. They understand in a way that those of us who are born here can forget, unless we are reflecting on the history of our own ancestors. They understand what an extraordinary gift Canadian citizenship is and what an extraordinary thing it is to become a part of this welcoming community.

This is the theme of the concerns we in the opposition are expressing with this legislation. We do not think it is inappropriate to respond to a court ruling, although I do want to return to that theme in a second because the government acted precipitantly in this manner, but we do think it is reasonable to apply a nuanced view to accept that the government‘s first draft might not be absolute perfection and that it is worth considering the ideas others, and other parties, are putting forward in the House of Commons.

Let me just talk for a moment about the way in which the government has handled this legislation. It responded to a ruling of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which was handed down on December 19, 2023. As one of my colleagues noted a little earlier in this debate, a deadline was attached for compliance to that ruling by the judge, and a variety of exigencies, including the recent election, nine months ago now, had the effect of pushing back that date. This was a ruling of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, not of the Supreme Court of Canada. I think we should understand that there is a distinction between rulings of lower courts and of the Supreme Court of Canada.

When the Supreme Court rules, it, of course, has nine members. Sometimes they sit en banc, which means all of them together. Sometimes there is an odd-numbered panel of seven. This allows for something very important to happen. Multiple opinions can be expressed, including dissenting opinions. For the question that is before the court, the simple question of whether party A is right or if party B is right, and which of these two interpretations of the law is right on that specific, narrow question, the majority rule prevails, but there are opinions, both of the majority and of any dissenting minority.

There can be more than one dissenting opinion that is filed. We can have seriatim dissents. In fact, we can have seriatim opinions in favour of the narrow point in question, with different reasoning. The reasoning is what is actually valuable. The reasoning is what pushes forward a more nuanced, intelligent and thorough comprehension of the common law or, in the case of constitutional interpretation, the development of our understanding of that statute. It is a really important concept.

That is why we have the Supreme Court. It is why our higher courts have more members than our lower courts, because higher courts are the ones where judicial reasoning is of particular importance, as it lays that ongoing and ever-building framework of improvement in our understanding of how our laws work and how our Constitution ought to be applied.

It is not with any sense of disrespect that I point out that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in its ruling, was the ruling of a single judge, one judge, with neither dissenting opinions from other judges, nor concurring opinions, for that matter. It would have been appropriate, I believe, for the government to have made an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to get the reasoning of a larger number of justices. We would not have seen the introduction of new facts. We do not in an appeal case, typically. We would have seen a review of what might be errors in judgment or errors in the understanding of the precedents. That is where the value lies. I think that it was regrettable that the government made the decision to not let this go to the Supreme Court.

Having said that, the government did not take the matter the Supreme Court. It took it to Parliament. It introduced Bill C-3. The bill essentially removes the first-generation limit, introduced by former prime minister Harper's government back in 2009, a model which, with variations, exists for many counties around the world. I talked at length about my mother's side of the family. My father's side of the family comes from Ireland.

Ireland applies a limit. My great-grandfather came from Ireland. His son and his grandson, my dad, would be eligible for Irish passports. I am not, which I frankly regret a little, but it is the way it is. Even if my father had gotten his Irish passport, which he thought about doing, I would not have qualified. That is a reasonable limit. My affection for Ireland is significant. My actual connection to the country is very limited. It is a reasonable limit to place.

There are other countries that do something different. Some countries never get rid of citizenship rights but they are typically countries that do not have that combination of people leaving and people coming from elsewhere, at least to the same degree. Malta, for example, extends it. There are very few people who have immigrated to Malta, although there are many Maltese immigrants. It is a significantly different situation.

The common-sense way in which the opposition parties have proposed to deal with some of this is by proposing a series of amendments. They proposed a change to the residency requirement. The parent applying for Canadian citizenship, who is the descendant of those who have left Canada, should be able to demonstrate a consecutive physical presence in Canada for the same time frame as a naturalized citizen. I think that this is a very reasonable rule for extending, effectively, a form of inherited citizenship to their children and grandchildren.

Other amendments include a citizenship test requirement, similar to what one would face if one was a new immigrant to Canada, and a security screening, to make sure that one has not broken the laws, not the kind of law I mentioned with my great-grandfather but the kind of law that we see with individuals who have committed violent criminal acts in other countries.

I think, as well, that our suggested amendments regarding transparency for the ministry would be very helpful, for a minister to report to Parliament on the number of citizenships granted under the terms of the bill every year. That would be a very helpful thing to see. Likewise, a reporting requirement on revealing security screening exemptions would also be something that should be considered by the government.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague had a very thoughtful speech. The last part of his speech was about transparency. The government is bringing forward a huge bill to make a huge change to something that is very important, which is citizenship, without any idea about the number of people who would qualify for that nor what the cost would be. The government is introducing a budget on November 4.

Why was the government not transparent and straightforward with Canadians about the major change they are making to the Citizenship Act?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked why the government was not transparent. I do not know the answer to that. It has a remarkable reluctance regarding transparency on many issues. The most obvious one has nothing to do with immigration.

It has to do with a certain emigrant who left this country, went abroad for a number of years, became governor of the Bank of England, wound up running Brookfield investments, moved its headquarters out of Canada, caused it to divert about $6.5 billion in tax revenues out of Canada and is someone who has shrouded his own assets in complete darkness, so we have no idea what he is invested in. I am obviously speaking of the Prime Minister. He makes the claim that he will be recused from anything that is a conflict. We cannot recuse the Prime Minister. He is implicated in every decision, and we have no idea where the conflicts are, although there are clearly many.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech, which was eloquent, as always.

I feel the amendments that were to Bill C‑3 are reasonable. They do not negate the bill, but they do set out conditions for obtaining citizenship. That is reasonable. The fact that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives joined forces without the government's agreement is neither excessive nor abusive. It is an improvement and a way of regulating citizenship.

How is it possible that we are debating a bill today when we know full well that on Monday, during the final vote, the NDP and the government will defeat the amendments and improvements to the bill? Once again, these amendments do not negate the bill or its basic thrust. They set out conditions for obtaining citizenship.

Could my colleague talk to us about that?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

When it comes to the rules for people immigrating to Canada, there is a requirement that they be able to speak one of our two official languages, for example. This is mandatory for people seeking citizenship who were born in a foreign country and who do not have a parent or grandparent who was born in Canada. I think this is a reasonable requirement for people who are in the same situation but who do have a parent or grandparent who was born in Canada.

The rules are there to ensure that both official languages are spoken by the majority of Canadians across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the Conservatives are actually supporting the lost Canadians. They are recognizing their birthright as being Canadian. That is my understanding.

Would the member not recognize that there is a difference between someone who has been naturalized through the permanent resident process and someone who stakes the claim that they have a birthright to citizenship? That is why we see a change in being able to qualify for citizenship, but there would still be the 1,095 days to qualify being applied to both.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no requirement for consecutive residency in Canada. I can see why the government might say one consecutive period of three years is too long, but to say there has to be no consecutiveness or a minimum period for any part of that is unreasonable.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an important debate to have as we approach Remembrance Week and Remembrance Day.

The discussion about Bill C-3 is a discussion about the value of Canadian citizenship: what that means, why it is valued, why it has lasting value, and the freedoms that Canadians enjoy and that Canadian citizenship affords. Whether it is freedom of speech, of religion, of mobility or of voting for and shaping government, these are important freedoms.

In shaping government and in voting, Canadians have clear expectations of what happens in our parliamentary democracy. They send representatives to the House, 343 of us in the most recent election, and there is a well-established process we follow here.

When a bill is introduced by the government, it requires approval at various stages. One of the most important functions is not the sound bites we hear on the news in the evening, see on social media or hear on the radio from question period, but the work that members do in committee, which is incredibly valuable.

The composition of committees represents the composition of the House. While there are members who are elected under the party banners of multiple parties that sit in the House, the parties do not have equal standing. That is how one party gets to form the government, by having the confidence of the House and most often having the most seats. The official opposition is second to that, and then there are additional opposition parties. There is a minimum standard for what constitutes party status. The composition of our committees reflects the composition of the chamber.

When a bill, for example Bill C-3, goes to committee, it undergoes scrutiny. We hear testimony from expert witnesses, and we have debates. Really good work can happen at committee. One of the most important roles of members of the House is their service on standing committees.

The Liberal government's wanting in this case to ignore the work of committee, the amendments to its legislation that get passed at committee, the improvements that get made, seeks to concentrate power in the executive, in the very few. I think if we asked most Canadians, they would want the majority of the work of the majority of members at committee to be reflected in the legislation, and not simply have the Prime Minister, by edict, ram things through the House.

The effect of looking to override and undermine the work of committee is that it erodes public trust, something that has fallen to all-time lows in recent years. I would say, what is more, that it undermines good governance and presupposes that the executive, cabinet, in presenting legislation, had all the answers and that the view of members at committee, their witnesses and the committee debates are not important or relevant.

How did we get to where we can have our parliamentary democracy? What did we do to earn it? It was bought and paid for with blood and sweat.

Thousands of people died, and we stand on their shoulders today, on the shoulders of the more than 118,000 Canadians and Newfoundlanders who died in the defence and the promotion of democracy, in conflicts since before our country was Canada. It started with the Fenian raids, the defence of Canada against U.S.-based militants. I can only imagine that with less than three minutes left in my speech, members would not think I would be starting in 1866.

It was consistent through the world wars and through the Korean War, the Congo wars, Cyprus, other UN engagements, and Afghanistan most recently, where 159 Canadian men and women, in the lifetime of all of us, died with the Canadian flag on their shoulder, along with seven Canadian civilians. I will note that in Afghanistan, the Brockville Rifles, my local regiment in Brockville, was awarded battle honours for that, in the defence and the promotion of the rights and values we have here at home.

That is what I am reflecting on this week, as well as my service as a regular member of Canada's army. I know there are other members on both sides of the House who served in uniform, and I thank them for their service. I know what it takes of an individual, and I know what it takes of the family. People do not have to have been deployed to have sacrificed. People do not have to have put on the uniform to know, recognize and appreciate that sacrifice.

That is what I want members to reflect on as they take decisions as we go forward in Parliament: what is in the best interests of Canada; what protects the value of our citizenship, of our passport; and what promotes that democracy, our parliamentary democracy, and respects the vote of the people who participated, who exercised their franchise as a Canadian in the last election. We are here to represent everyone, and it is an incredible honour. It is a privilege. However, it is a big responsibility; I reflect on that too.

While we make a decision as a House on what to do next with Bill C-3, I would just ask members to consider our parliamentary democracy, our traditions, how we came to be here, the defence and the protection of those freedoms, and of course why the process that was undertaken at committee is so important.