Debates of Nov. 4th, 2025

Citizenship Act

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer to that question is this: Do the child's parents speak French or English? Did the child's parents spend at least three consecutive years in the country over a five-year period?

These criteria do not seem that extreme to me. Am I wrong?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2025, following my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who explained the issue well.

This topic interests me because certain places in Quebec have been identified as settlement areas, and Granby is one of them. These are communities located in regions outside major urban centres. The Quebec department is asking people to settle there and discover Quebec culture, which is who we are. Granby is included in these settlement areas, and that is a tremendous asset. One organization in Granby is working very hard to teach immigrants French so that they can take their place in Granby's regional community. It is called SERY.

I would like to salute the members of that organization this morning as they prepare to present their intercultural recital on Saturday, which is returning after a forced hiatus because of the pandemic. This performance is being presented as part of Quebec's week of intercultural encounters, which is being held this week, from November 3 to 9, with the theme “Quebec in common”. The goal is to really emphasize encounters and exchanges between Quebeckers of all origins. This is extremely important, and I will be stopping by to say hello to everyone at Verbe Divin Secondary School on Saturday and to take in the cultural richness, beauty and various forms of artistic expression.

That said, today we are talking about Bill C-3, which corrects a historical injustice in the Citizenship Act in response to a December 2023 ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which found that the first-generation limit on citizenship is unconstitutional. This limit was put in place by the Conservatives in 2009. Now we are in a bit of a bind, because if we do not take action, the court's ruling is going to apply instead of Bill C‑3. Could that open the door even wider? We do not know, but we want to know. That is why we are debating Bill C‑3 in the House today.

We also know that this issue has been dragging on for years. Bill C-71 and Bill S-245 were introduced to address citizenship. An election was called and the bill died on the Order Paper. Now we have to hurry due to this court ruling and the fact that this matter has unfortunately been dragging on for some time.

The goal is to make the right to citizenship fair, consistent and inclusive. It is true that the current law creates some bizarre situations. I am going to begin by talking about the Bloc Québécois's position and the amendments that were proposed in committee. Next, I will talk about what the bill fixes, and I will close with a few statistics.

For now, the Bloc Québécois is reserving judgment. We are going to wait and see how things play out. We know there are negotiations going on. We are a bit disappointed about what happened, and we are asking that the work done at committee be respected. The amendments were rejected at report stage. We opposed the amendments from the government, which teamed up with the NDP. Those amendments sought to eliminate the requirement that the 1,095 days of residence take place within a five-year period, abolish the tests for adult applicants, and remove the obligation to report to Parliament. These are important matters. They are not trivial.

In contrast, we did support the amendments presented at committee that called for a residence requirement of 1,095 days in Canada during the five years preceding the child's birth. We also supported the amendment that established a language test, a citizenship knowledge test and a security assessment for applicants 18 years of age and over. The Conservative members and my Bloc Québécois colleague, who rose to speak just before I did, told us in their speeches how important these amendments are. They deal with language, culture and citizenship knowledge. They also deal with the security risk people might pose. That is essential. The same requirements apply to other naturalized citizens. They are requirements, and we want to have the same rules for everyone. In a nutshell, that is what we are asking for.

We also want accountability through an annual report to Parliament on the number of citizenships that are granted. We have the right to get a report and to know where we stand. We want these measures to ensure that applicants have a real connection to Canada, as required by the court. We need to ensure that this is the case. We are concerned that the new amendments proposed by the NDP and the Liberals will water down this bill and undermine the essential amendments that we worked on in committee with the Conservatives.

This bill also seeks to correct absurd situations, as I mentioned earlier, where a child born abroad to Canadian parents cannot obtain citizenship. Take the case of Jean-François as an example. His father was born abroad, and he himself was born abroad while his father was completing his doctorate in the United States. Even though he returned to Quebec when he was three months old, and even though he grew up here and spent his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was not automatically granted citizenship.

The spark that ignited this whole debate came from Don Chapman, a former airline pilot who worked for United Airlines and whose story attracted public attention. Chapman discovered that his citizenship had been revoked when his father emigrated to the United States. His astute demonstration that this problem affected many Canadians, such as Roméo Dallaire, without them even knowing it, forced Parliament to take serious action on this issue.

The bill aims to remedy the status of the following individuals: Canadian women who lost their citizenship before 1947 upon marrying a non-Canadian; individuals born between 1977 and 1981 who lost their citizenship because they did not renew it by age 28; and children adopted abroad whose Canadian parent died before the adoption. It would fix situations such as these.

I will conclude my speech by presenting some data. We will also assess the scope of this bill. My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères mentioned that this reform would affect 150,000 people over five years. The estimated cost is $20.8 million, which is not insignificant. We know that 91.2% of the Canadian population already has citizenship, that 50.6% are women, and that gender equity with regard to citizenship remains essential.

As well, 19.5% of the population is 65 or older. Many seniors have been affected by the old laws and exclusions. As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I have heard about some cases that deeply concern me. All of this has reduced naturalization rates, which were 57.5% for immigrants admitted between 2011 and 2015, down from 68.5% between 2006 and 2010. New citizens tend to integrate well: 93% are filing taxes in Canada 10 years after landing.

In Quebec, the percentage of first-generation individuals born outside of Canada has grown among young people, climbing from 9% to 18% in the 15- to 24-year-old age group. Among members of the second generation, it increased from 11% to 16% for that age group, according to Statistics Québec. In 2021, Statistics Quebec also reported that immigrant women accounted for 14.9% of all women in Quebec, excluding non-permanent residents.

As I was saying, a significant number of seniors could be affected by the old citizenship rules, including the parents and grandparents of the individuals concerned.

Staying with Quebec, it is estimated that nearly 10% of Quebeckers have at least one second-generation foreign-born parent, and nearly 10% of Quebeckers are second-generation immigrants, according to New Canadian Media.

This is a serious topic. In conclusion, I would like to say that, aside from everything the bill could change, this situation shows that the Liberals are not mindful of the minority mandate they received for a third time in the last election, nor do they respect the work done in committee. The committee heard from witnesses, and there were discussions and negotiations among MPs. The Conservatives and the Bloc worked hard on amendments to fix the flaws in this bill, but all that work was ultimately undone by the NDP and the Liberals. What a blatant lack of respect.

I want to acknowledge the work my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean did on this file. This is a minority government, and it should take that into account. Passing laws on closure and disregarding the work done in committee should not happen in this democratic institution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know there is a sense of disappointment within the Bloc in regard to their amendments, and I can understand and appreciate why.

I look at it in terms of birthright. There is a difference between birthright and naturalization of citizenship, in other words, from a permanent resident to a citizen.

Would the member not agree that principles of democracy here in Canada say that all members of Parliament are equal, and even though she might not like the position of the NDP, their votes should matter, too, and that is why their amendments failed? Should we not respect that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand my colleague's question correctly, he is saying that the amendments put forward by the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives were actually crucial.

All we wanted was for applicants to undergo a security test and be able to speak our language. We asked for accountability to Parliament. I think the proposed amendments absolutely respected democracy.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why undo the work that was done in committee? Everyone knows the Bloc Québécois is rigorous when it comes to correcting deficiencies, so why undo what was done in committee?

That is what we are having a hard time understanding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the safety of our fellow citizens must always be a priority for us all.

I have a simple question. Can my colleague explain why she thinks the Liberals opposed criminal background checks for people coming into Canada under this bill?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Liberals and say why they voted against that.

I would like to remind the House that naturalized citizens are subject to security screenings. Those requirements are already in place.

Why should the two groups be treated differently? Why should these applicants not also have to undergo security screenings? There is a reason why these amendments were put forward.

Someone should ask the Liberals that question. It is hard to understand their position. Security is a crucial and important issue. Security screening, language testing and knowledge of citizenship are important issues that should have been brought before the House and voted on.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship openly admitted in committee that she had no idea how many people would be affected by this bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer finally gave an estimate of 150,000 people.

The Bloc Québécois, with the support of the Conservatives, tabled an amendment to make sure that, after the bill is passed, a report is made to Parliament on how many people have benefited from the bill, meaning how many people have obtained citizenship because of it. Unfortunately, the Liberals rejected that amendment.

The Liberals currently have no idea how many people will be affected, and they do not even want to know. Why does my colleague think that is?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it would be good to know that.

Will it be 150,000 people? Will it be less or more? Evidently, the number of people affected has a financial impact. There needs to be accountability. As parliamentarians, we have the right to know and we should get an annual update. That would be critically important. There is a reason this amendment was proposed.

This confirms to me that, unfortunately, accountability to Parliament is not the Liberals' strong suit. They are not transparent. They do not show respect for democracy and the mandates they have received. Accountability to Parliament should be a given.

I sincerely hope that we will be able to get this annual report and find out the exact number of new citizens and the financial impact this will have. It is important.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Davenport, a great member of Parliament.

It is an honour to stand in the House of Commons today on behalf of the people of Scarborough—Woburn to talk about this important issue, Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. To me, this is a very simple piece of legislation that would extend automatic citizenship to anyone who was born abroad to Canadian parents before the legislation came into force, which I believe was in 2009. This includes people who are not currently able to claim citizenship by descent due to the first-generation limit, such as the remaining lost Canadians and their descendants.

This is about fairness, equality and protecting the rights of Canadians. The folks watching at home or paying attention to this debate should know that the Ontario Superior Court made a decision that was based on two parts of the Constitution. It was based on sections 6 and 15, which speak to mobility rights and equality rights. If Canadians living abroad have descendants, they have the right to be Canadians. It is a very simple piece of legislation.

I am an immigrant to this country. I was born in the U.K., in Yorkshire, England, in a town called Aidensfield. I spent the first four and a half years of my life in England. My mother is from a small town in Yorkshire called Barnsley. It is known for coal and glass-blowing. If we look at its coat of arms, that is what we see. My father is from a small island off the coast of Grenada called Carriacou, where there are about 10,000 people. My father went to England and met my mother, and they started a family and came to Canada.

To quote one of the greatest prime ministers this country has ever had, “Canada is the best country”, period. I love this country. It has been so good to the many people from Carriacou, Grenada, who have come here and people from all around the world.

The reason this issue is so important to all members of Parliament is that we understand the value of Canadian citizenship. We love our country. I would say there is no debate on that in the House; each of us loves our provinces and our country. Being immigrants, coming to Canada was probably the best decision my parents could have made. We value Canadian citizenship, and that is why this issue is such a difficult issue for some people to debate.

I grew up in Flemingdon Park in Toronto, and in that part of town, the majority of people were first-generation Canadians. There were people from all around the world in my building, from the Philippines, Korea, Europe, Africa, the Caribbean and a lot from Greece. It was such a multicultural environment. At dinnertime, in the hallway where I lived, we could smell every spice from around the world because there were so many different cultures in the building.

Many people now vilify immigrants coming to this country. They blame them for a lot of things, but make no mistake that outside of our indigenous past and the indigenous people in this country, every single person in this country has an immigrant past. They could have been here for 400 years, 40 years or four years. We all have an immigrant past in this country outside of our indigenous brothers and sisters. This country has been built by the efforts of many people from many different places around the world.

If someone who is granted Canadian citizenship decides to do some travelling, under a first-generation rule for someone who is the descendant of a Canadian citizen, they should be allowed to come back to their country. I believe the Ontario Superior Court made the right decision on that, because it is about equality and our ability to have mobility. It means that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we can leave, travel from and return to Canada at our own choosing as Canadians. It is part of our constitutional rights. It is part of our charter protections.

There are people who will say that Canada is broken. They will say that Canada is not the country it used to be. I do not believe that. I believe Canada is the greatest country in the world. I believe that wholeheartedly.

I was in an Uber a couple of days ago and met a gentleman who is a doctor in his country. He is a Canadian citizen now and is trying to get his Canadian medical residency in order to practise here. I said to him that I knew this was very challenging, because the statistics sometimes do not support any optimism in the possibility of becoming a doctor. He said the fact that he was in this country and that his rights were protected meant a lot to him. I asked him what he meant by that. He told me where he came from and talked about some of the challenges there. He said that we collectively as Canadians protect each other through our rights by making sure individual and collective rights are protected, and these are the things that help define who we are as Canadians.

We are here to protect each other. We are here to protect people so they can pray to whoever they decide, love whoever they want and have the ability say what they believe or criticize the government. These are the protections afforded under our Constitution. Within those constitutional rights, Canadian citizens have the right to enter and return to the country. There is another section for equality.

There is no question that we need to continue to support lost Canadians. We need to make sure there is a pathway so Canadians can return home and we can continue to build the type of country that has made all of us proud. To be Canadian is a very special thing, and I am so happy to stand here on behalf of my riding of Scarborough—Woburn and on behalf of all Canadians who agree with the position about making sure lost Canadians can return to this country. I want to say how proud I am to stand here and support this piece of legislation.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a Liberal questioner earlier talked about somebody who had been away on deployment and came back and had a child while away on deployment. I do not think this bill addresses that. I think it is second-generation citizenship that this bill in particular answers to.

I am wondering if the member opposite could clarify for me if this bill is indeed about the second generation.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must be reading something he was given by his whip, because I never talked about somebody being deployed and then coming back here. What I did talk about was that the bill would extend automatic citizenship to anyone who was born abroad to Canadian parents before the legislation came into force.

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

Mr. Speaker, the amendments put forward by the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative opposition were intended, among other things, to ensure that adult applicants have a knowledge of English or French, that they have undergone a security check for national security reasons, and that they were in the country for 1,095 days over five years. There was also a requirement to report on the number of citizenships granted under the bill.

I want to know why the member voted against that. I also want him to explain what was so unreasonable about these requests.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not at the committee when these issues were being deliberated on, but I am happy to hear that the Bloc Québécois is participating in the democratic process and making suggestions in the committee process for consideration. Some amendments will be passed and some will not, but I thank the member for his contribution to the strengthening of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide some clarity.

Let us imagine that I moved to Germany, and my daughter Cindy is born in Germany. If I had Cindy when I was in Germany, in order for her to pass on Canadian citizenship to my potential grandchild, she would have to prove a substantial connection to Canada of 1,095 days. As long as she was able to do that before she has a child, that child, my grandchild, would be a Canadian citizen.

Would my colleague agree that providing the opportunity for Canadians to have their grandchildren be Canadian is a good thing?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's grandchild was not afforded Canadian citizenship after he has contributed so much to Parliament, it would be a real shame.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad he is clarifying this.

The point is that if his daughter became a Canadian citizen, she could easily pass Canadian citizenship on to her children.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

She is a Canadian citizen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying she is a Canadian citizen, but if she was born in Germany, there would be a process for her to establish Canadian citizenship. If she is a Canadian citizen and has children while she is still in Germany, she too can pass it on. That is all currently—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, she can't.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if someone is a Canadian citizen, they are capable of passing it on. This bill, as far as I understand, is about the third generation and people who were missed.

[An hon. member]

No, it's the second.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Liberals could please explain to me where I am wrong on that.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the member has to go back and check the notes he was provided. It sounds like his question was not very precise and to the point and does not reflect the proposed legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, hypothetically, if my daughter Cindy was born in Germany, she would have to have a substantial connection to Canada before she gives birth so that her child, my future potential grandchild, would be deemed a Canadian citizen. That is what the legislation would do.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is right.