Debates of Nov. 4th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure, as always, to speak on behalf of the residents of my amazing constituency of Davenport on the third reading of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Before I go further, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I will spend the next nine minutes or so reminding members about why it is important for us to be passing Bill C-3, which, again, is in third reading. Soon we will be having a vote on it. This will be a nice refresher, because sometimes we go through a lot of things in this House and we can forget about the importance of the bill and why we are moving forward on it.

I am grateful there is broad, cross-party support for the key part of Bill C-3, which is fixing the status for the remaining lost Canadians. The bill would remedy the status of people who, were it not for the first-generation limit imposed in 2009, would have been Canadian citizens by descent from birth. This is largely a cohort of children 16 and under, and also includes the descendants of previously remedied lost Canadians. It would also address a small historical cohort who lost citizenship under outdated provisions of the 1977 Citizenship Act. Only 35 to 40 people came forward annually at first, and numbers have declined in recent years.

I have the privilege of being able to chair the committee, and I want to thank the committee members and witnesses for the collegial work that brought us to this point of consensus. During the committee study, members proposed and adopted several amendments to Bill C-3. The government carefully reviewed each one and appreciates the intent behind them. However, after our review, we remain confident that the original design of Bill C-3 achieves fairness and transparency in the citizenship system and upholds the value of Canadian citizenship.

The framework set out in this bill for citizenship by descent is straightforward. Once enacted, a Canadian parent born abroad may pass on their citizenship to a child also born or adopted abroad only if that parent has at least 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before the child's birth or adoption. Each generation after the first one must demonstrate their connection to Canada. If a parent does not, citizenship by descent stops with them.

Let me be clear on what this bill is not. It is not about creating a new way to immigrate to Canada nor about passing on Canadian citizenship in perpetuity while living abroad. It is about allowing the children of Canadians who have a strong connection to our country to access citizenship by descent regardless of where they happen to be born or adopted. It is about protecting the value of Canadian citizenship by requiring these parents to show they have spent meaningful time in Canada, before starting a family, reaffirming their connection to our great country.

The question, then, is how best to measure that connection. For people who move to Canada and seek to become part of its story, we already have a clear way to assess whether they have a substantial connection to this country. Under the Citizenship Act, permanent residents must accumulate at least 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada within a five-year period before they are eligible to apply for naturalization. However, citizenship by descent, which is what this bill is about, is different. It is not about granting citizenship to someone seeking to join Canada but about confirming citizenship at birth based on a parent's connection to Canada prior to their child's birth or adoption. For that reason, the test for connection must be applied differently.

Bill C-3 is built on a cumulative model. For Canadian parents born outside of Canada, this model counts every day they have spent here before starting a family regardless of when those days occurred. This approach recognizes the many ways Canadians maintain deep ties to their country, even when work, study or family responsibilities take them abroad.

Consider a Canadian child born overseas whose family relocates every two years for work. That child could live nearly a decade in Canada before age 18 without ever spending three consecutive years here within a five-year period. When that child grows up, they may start a family abroad or choose to adopt internationally. Under a fixed three-years-in-five time frame, their genuine life experience in Canada may not qualify their child to access citizenship.

However, the cumulative model allows Canadians whose lives span borders to demonstrate their connection to Canada from birth right up until they start a family, rather than expecting them to compress their presence into a narrow window. The 1,095-day cumulative requirement is therefore the fairest and most practical way to uphold the value of Canadian citizenship. Importing the naturalization requirements into citizenship by descent would conflate two distinct policy purposes and risk excluding the children of Canadians whose ties to Canada were built over time.

The integrity of Canadian citizenship depends on applying the right standards in the right context. For people who move to Canada, the naturalization process assesses their readiness to join the Canadian family. It requires—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order out of respect for the interpreters and to avoid a problem.

They are telling us that a telephone seems to be interfering with the audio.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for her intervention.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start from maintaining integrity and fairness.

The integrity of Canadian citizenship depends on applying the right standards in the right context. For people who move to Canada, the naturalization process assesses their readiness to join the Canadian family. It requires establishing a substantial connection to this country through recent residence, knowledge of Canada and knowledge of one of our official languages, tests that confirm they are ready to become part of our shared civic life.

Citizenship by descent, again, is different. It is not an immigration pathway. It does not confer membership in Canada on someone new. It recognizes citizenship that already exists from birth, through a Canadian parent who has a real connection to Canada either because they were born here or because they have met the statutory test of physical presence in Canada.

Introducing additional requirements, such as language proficiency, knowledge testing or security screening, for Canadians who are citizens at birth would blur the line between immigration and citizenship by descent. It would impose a process meant for newcomers—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

The interpreters are again saying that there is a telephone ringing near a microphone.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member.

Perhaps the member could hand her phone back a couple of rows or put it on—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It is just that I am looking at my time, Mr. Speaker. It is hard for me to know my timing. I will put it on my chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member. The Chair will indicate the two-minute mark.

I will invite the member for Davenport to resume her comments.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, introducing additional requirements, such as language proficiency, knowledge testing or security screening, for Canadians who are citizens at birth would blur the line between immigration and citizenship by descent. It would impose a process meant for newcomers on people whose citizenship is already recognized in law.

We do not ask Canadians born in this country to pass tests to retain their citizenship, nor do we impose these kinds of tests now on Canadians who are born abroad. Extending such tests to those born or adopted abroad beyond the first generation would create distinctions between Canadians based solely on their place of birth. Extending such tests only to adults would create distinctions based on age. Canada cannot have different classes of citizens. Bill C-3 maintains the proper separation between immigration and citizenship law. It ensures that citizenship at birth, whether by place or by parentage, remains clear, consistent and secure.

I want to reassure Canadians that Bill C-3 already includes strong safeguards to uphold both the integrity of citizenship and the security of our country. Citizenship by descent will not operate on the honour system. The burden of proof rests squarely on the Canadian parent, who must provide evidence of their 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before their child’s birth or adoption. Documents such as educational transcripts, pay stubs and leases will be reviewed carefully by officers, who may request additional information when needed. If a parent cannot demonstrate the required physical presence, their child born or adopted abroad will not be Canadian.

All of Canada’s existing integrity measures continue to apply as well. Passport controls, law enforcement co-operation, prosecution for extraterritorial offences and citizenship revocation in cases of fraud remain essential tools to protect the safety of Canadians and the trust they place in our citizenship system.

I am running out of time, so I am just going to go to my conclusion.

I will just say that Bill C-3 represents a thoughtful and balanced step forward in Canada’s citizenship laws. There is broad, cross-party agreement on the need to remedy the status of remaining lost Canadians, and this bill delivers that solution. It also modernizes how citizenship by descent is applied, preserving the connection between generations of Canadians while ensuring that our laws remain clear, practical and consistent.

I would ask that my hon. colleagues on the other side of this House kindly consider voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to, perhaps, pick the hon. member's brain a little about Bill C-3. It is an interesting thing that the government brought this forward. I remember that during the campaign, the Prime Minister talked about how we were going to build projects at lightning speed, we were going to have to change some legislation and we were going to do all these great things in Canada.

Then there is Bill C-3, the third piece of legislation the Liberals brought forward. This whole thing was not even mentioned in the Liberal platform. I am just wondering why Bill C-3 is such an important thing for the Liberal government when we have a whole bunch of other things to do.

Why was this put forward now?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question. In December 2023, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, we had a judge who declared section 3(3)(a) and section 3(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act, key provisions limiting the passing of citizenship by descent to the first generation, to be of no force or effect.

There were three main constitutional violations that were found, and the courts gave our government a certain period of time to address that matter. We had no choice but to introduce legislation to address these constitutional violations. We have been granted a number of extensions. The last extension we have is November 20. That is why we are anxious to pass the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the proposed amendments sought to ensure that adults living abroad who are descendants of Canadian citizens and who wish to obtain citizenship would be required to know either French or English. The Liberals rejected that amendment.

Why are they against making a knowledge of French or English a condition of citizenship?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to spell this out in my 10 minutes of speaking. We treat Canadians differently than we do newcomers to our country. If I am born here as a Canadian, I am not tested as to whether I speak a certain level of French or a certain level of English in order to be Canadian. It is the same requirement that we are applying to Canadians of descent.

That is the reason.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to amplify the fact that it is really important the legislation pass before November 20, and when I say “pass”, it also has to go through the Senate. It has to receive royal assent. It is absolutely critical. Otherwise, if it does not pass, it puts into question the whole birthright issue of acquiring citizenship.

Would my hon. colleague not agree that collectively, as a House, we need to push hard to get the bill passed, so that ultimately it can get royal assent?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague. We have to deal with some of these issues when we find that our laws are not constitutional. I do think it is a priority for us to make sure we handle them as expeditiously as possible. There are a lot of items that are going to be before the House. I know everybody is looking forward to budget 2025 being introduced today. I think that as soon as we can get very clear pieces of legislation like this passed as quickly as possible, we can then move to other business of interest to Canadians.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that in Bill C-3, after the Liberals rejected the amendments that were passed at committee across party lines, the bar for citizenship has been lowered.

I would like to ask the hon. member, very candidly, a very simple yes-or-no question. Does she believe citizenship of this country should be easier for people to access?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the member's question.

We have a bill that is very strong before the House. I think it meets the requirements of the constitutional test that have been raised by the Ontario Superior Court judge. I think we put forward an excellent piece of legislation.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak again in the House about this issue. Bill C-3 has been before the House a number of times already, so here we are talking about it again.

One big reason that we are talking about this comes back to the fact that the immigration system has been messed up by the Liberals over the last 10 years. In the bill, Bill C-3, in particular, we are talking about the value of citizenship. The bill would actually devalue citizenship. I want to chat this morning about that and how we are struggling with the way that the immigration system has been broken by the Liberal government. I remind people here, as we are all aware, that we are going to be seeing a budget later today, which will also give out the immigration-levels plan. We are all very curious to see whether there is any hope of restoring faith in our immigration system. I guess we will see that later today, potentially.

Bill C-3 all started because there was a lower-court ruling that the existing second-generation limit was not proper. The core problem is that the current Liberal government chose not to appeal that ruling and instead just accepted the ruling as it was. It really reflects, in my view, something we have seen many times from the government, which is that rather than actually putting forth legislation and exerting Parliament's influence and power in this country to make laws and make the laws people want, the government tends to rely on what the courts say: What the courts say, they will just accept. That is what happened here. A lower court made a ruling. I did not agree with it, and the federal government had every right to appeal that ruling, clarify it and try to get something that was more in line with what Canadians want.

We see that all the time; for example, we see it with Bill C-12, which is also before the House right now. The government has had warnings that the powers it is putting in Bill C-12 would be likely to be challenged constitutionally and are likely to fail, yet the government does not want to promote legislation that would be good and ultimately pass. Instead, the Liberals are throwing it to the courts and letting the courts tell them what to do. That is completely wrong.

What we, as a committee, attempted to do was to clean this up a bit. Bill C-3 is really about chain migration. It is about people not born in Canada getting citizenship and having children who are not born in Canada, never even living in Canada but having a very loose connection to Canada, and then passing on that citizenship to generation after generation after generation. We tweaked it a bit and tried to make it better, and that is what came back to the House. That was defeated by the NDP and the Liberal government, the NDP-Liberal coalition that still seems to be alive and well. Now we are back to the original text of the bill, which in my view is not good. The reason I do not think it is good is that in the bill that we are debating today, the original text of Bill C-3, we would hand out citizenship and lower the value of citizenship. We would create a situation of chain migration.

We would not ensure that people who attain citizenship through this method can speak one of the languages and are not criminals, which are basic things. The Liberals have said that this is not about that; it is about automatically getting citizenship. The reality is that what the Liberals have proposed has a condition, which is that people have to have spent 1,095 days in Canada as a parent before the birth of the child. There is a condition there, so it is not automatic citizenship; they are not deemed to be a citizen automatically. If a parent not born in Canada has a child not born in Canada, that child would not automatically be a citizen under the new legislation. There is a condition there, which is that it has to be at least 1,095 days. What we proposed was to tighten those conditions even further to make it 1,095 days, which is three years, within a five-year period. That would show a substantial connection to Canada. If someone has spent three out of five years in Canada, that is a substantial connection. We also want to make sure that an older person coming into the country speaks one of the two languages, is not a criminal and understands what it means to be Canadian. These are not unreasonable things; they are just further conditions to what the Liberal government has already proposed.

The other thing that I find quite telling is that we proposed and passed at committee, with the help of the Bloc, the requirement for the government to report to Parliament the number of citizens created by this method. Of course the government refused to do that. The Liberals are not at all into transparency. They do not want anything that is done by them to be known by Canadians. As a result, when this amended bill came back to the House, the government, with the help of the NDP, undid those changes.

Therefore, here we are with devalued citizenship again, with citizens of convenience. These are people who do not live in Canada but realize that, through a loophole, they can actually claim citizenship, because their parents spent a random 1,095 days in Canada. These are going to create future problems for future governments, for future ministers and for the people of Canada in the future. The bill would further make sure that Canada's immigration system remains a joke.

I neglected to mention that I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

That leads me to our broken immigration system. We have a broken system in Canada. I know the Liberals do not like to talk about Canada's being broken, because it just reveals everything they have done to our country in the last 10 years. However, by any objective measure at all, Canada's immigration system is a mess. In fact, it has become a bit of a joke in the world, and it is an embarrassment, to be frank.

The asylum system is one good example. We had this infamous tweet that has been mentioned many times, by Justin Trudeau; it said, “#WelcomeToCanada”. Of course, that started an avalanche of people coming into our country, wanting to get into our country through Roxham Road. That is a good example, in which they were not using normal processes and not using the same system that every other newcomer to our country has followed. By the way, the people whom I talked to who are the most upset about this system are the actual newcomers who used the system the way it was intended to be used, who waited the time they had to wait and filled out the paperwork that they had to fill out, as opposed to those who came into our country through a backdoor system.

Of course, the government, in its infinite wisdom, not only endorsed this method but built infrastructure and instructed the police to welcome people. It is such a strange thing, to say, “Sorry, you cannot cross here, but welcome to Canada” and help them carry their bags in. It was ridiculous. Ultimately, that is part of our broken system.

The other thing I wanted to highlight is what is called our humanitarian and compassionate category. Certainly, it is important for us to focus newcomers in our country on skills and requirements that we have in our country, so the newcomers who come here are able not only to work and succeed but actually to add great value to our country. That has been the history of immigration in Canada for years and years. That is not happening right now.

However, there is one category that we should always try to do, and that is to help people when we can. We can only help so much, but we should still be doing that. There have been cases with Ukrainians, for example, or with Hong Kongers who have been invited to come to our country. They are now here, but the government is not providing a way for them to actually become citizens.

It is really quite ridiculous, so we end up with wait times, and we can go and see it on the website. It is hard to believe, but it is true. It actually says 10-plus years of wait time for some of these categories. In the briefing notes that were given to the immigration minister when she became minister in the spring, it said, in some cases, over 50 years, which is absolutely ridiculous. It just further proves how broken our system is.

That brings me to today, which is budget day. We are going to hear about the levels plan, which tells how many people the government hopes and intends to let into this country. One thing I want to point out is that we have asked numerous times, and the government is unable to provide a number of people who would become citizens through the legislation. They defer the question. They do not seem to know, which does not give me much confidence that they actually know what they are doing. They have a lot of people working for them, as we know. There are hundreds of thousands of people working for the government, yet they cannot figure out how many people this would have an impact on.

One thing I want to note is that, in the last year's levels plan, it showed that our non-permanent, temporary resident population was going to come down to 5% in 2026, so I am very curious to see how that number is reflected today. Are we going to hit the 5% number for 2026? I would remind the government that 2026 is a couple of months from now. I think we are well over 7% now, so I would say the plans made a year ago are probably not going to happen, if I were a gambling man. I am just curious about what we are going to see from that. I am also very curious about how we are going to see spending come in at a “generational” level, as the government likes to say. To me, that is generational debt. We are giving generational debt to our children.

The system is broken. The bill would devalue the value of citizenship. It would create a chain migration system that I believe is wrong. I would encourage people in the House to vote against this. This is not something that would help our country, and the government could have done a far better job creating legislation that would stand up to the courts, that would protect Canadians and that would restore and protect the value of citizenship.

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

Madam Speaker, shortly, I will be able to provide a lot of details in terms of the content of the bill. However, I want to ask a question specifically with respect to temporary workers. We have the leader of the Conservative Party saying he is going to get rid of the temporary worker program. He is saying we should not be renewing temporary workers.

I just heard the member across the way comment on people who have come from Ukraine. Does the member not realize that the tens of thousands of people here from Ukraine are here with work permits? These need to be extended. If they are not extended, the people are obligated to leave.

Does the member believe the government should not listen to his leader and should allow for an extension of work permits for people from Ukraine who have those permits?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is so much to talk about in that question. I will talk about the Ukrainian people, and I would frame it a certain way.

Right now, we can imagine that the member opposite had a temporary permit to work in Canada and was worried about the fact that it was going to expire in, let us say, two months. The government is not very good at renewing permits. Anyone who has worked in the system knows this. Basically, the government is telling these people they can be here because they have a temporary permit, but they have to trust the government to get the permit renewed.

It does not happen in a timely manner. These people are living with stress. There needs to be a better solution than just throwing them into Canada to fend for themselves, without giving them the proper documentation. This is the problem with the government. There is a lack of ability to create a system that actually works for the people who are here and that benefits them, as well as all of Canada.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that some of us worked collaboratively in committee to propose obvious amendments to Bill C-3.

I know that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois worked on these amendments so that the bill would include a language requirement, so that people would have to be able express themselves in French, particularly in Quebec, or in both languages. It is important that people pass a citizenship knowledge test and undergo security screening.

Why were those three amendments so important? How does my colleague explain the fact that the Liberals and the NDP rejected those three obvious amendments?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The Bloc members at our committee were very co-operative and helpful with creating good amendments, particularly around the issues of language and knowledge of Canada. This was the work of the committee. This work was delegated to the committee by the House. The Bloc members had very good responses and reasons for why we want to protect language.

Of course, we want to make sure those in our country understand one of our two official languages, be it English or French. This is critical to making sure that we are able to put a value on citizenship, that we are able to define what it means to be Canadian and what Canadian values are. Language is probably core to that issue.

It is very sad to see the Liberal government just throw language away, not make it part of the bill and not consider it important.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who serves on the committee and who amplified the question asked by my colleague from the Bloc.

There were common-sense amendments proposed by the Conservatives, in conjunction with the Bloc Québécois, that upheld the value of Canadian citizenship, that looked at language and the ability to speak one of the two founding languages of the country, and many other things. However, those were blocked by the Liberal government.

Why does the member think that is? Why is there this reticence to uphold the value of Canadian citizenship when we should be doing that with a piece of legislation like this?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague's question points to a broader problem on the other side of the aisle in the government, and that is a lack of creativity and a lack of ability to create good legislation.

We can see that in the current legislation. This is a carbon copy of Bill C-71, which was a carbon copy of the highly modified Senate bill that came to the House prior to that. There is not one bit of difference between Bill C-71 from the last Parliament and Bill C-3 in this Parliament. There was no thought put into it. The new minister just took it and ran with it. There was no consideration given to some of the limitations raised in the previous discussions and debate. It is clear that the government does not know what it is doing when it comes to immigration.