Debates of Nov. 4th, 2025

Oral Questions

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was just going to say that, in the spirit of maintaining decorum and following the rules, at the beginning of the member's comments he referenced the presence and absence of a member in the chamber, including who is in the chair. I think that we should refrain from doing that.

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

It is well noted.

The hon. member for York—Durham is rising on the same point of order.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very well noted from the member for Waterloo. I appreciate that. As a new member, I am still learning the rules.

I am happy to take the Chair's direction on this. I would have hoped that, after over a month of time, the Speaker's office would have reviewed the transcript to confirm what has been said. I am wondering now that you are in the chair again, if you would ask the member to withdraw those comments because they are unparliamentary.

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

Please do not refer to who is present in the Chair. Saying “you are in the chair again” refers to precisely that: my presence or not in the Chair.

Beyond the debate, we will come back to the member on the ruling by the Speaker when said review is finished.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), be read the third time and passed.

Citizenship Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was really enjoying the debate; it is lots of fun. I want to thank my colleague who split his time with me, my friend from Red Deer, for his excellent speech. I am happy to rise again and talk about the bill. I spoke to it at second reading, and I am happy to offer my thoughts again at third reading, although I have some suspicion about what actually happened. I have been in this place a long time, and the fact that we are not debating the bill the committee actually adopted at third reading is interesting, to say the least.

I rise today to deal with Bill C-3, which claims to redress the lost Canadians issue but, of course, goes far beyond that goal and scope in its intent. Lost Canadians are those with strong ties to Canada who have been denied the privilege of being conferred our citizenship because of complexities or outdated provisions in our laws. Conservatives believe those who have been arbitrarily or unfairly denied this privilege should have this error corrected, yet the bill that is currently before Parliament remains a bad one, notwithstanding that issue.

Instead of merely remediating the most egregious cases of lost citizenship, the Liberals took the liberty of creating a system that would completely gut and undervalue the value of Canadian citizenship. While most immigrants to Canada must work hard to acquire their citizenship, something they are immensely proud of, the bill would create a system in which citizenship is not awarded in a merit-based manner. It introduces an extremely weak substantial connection test to gain citizenship.

An individual's parents need only to spend 1,095 nonconsecutive days in Canada at any point to gain citizenship. No criminal background check would be required. This was something Conservatives proposed as an amendment at committee and had passed, but, suspiciously, it has now been removed from the bill at third reading. This is the point I would like to expand on, and it should not be ignored.

In the last few days, I received a response to an Order Paper question in which I asked how many non-Canadians are incarcerated in federal prisons in Canada. That number would not even include the ones incarcerated in provincial institutions, which are for people serving sentences of up to two years less a day. It showed that there are nearly 1,000 non-Canadians in federal institutions in Canada.

If one is serving a federal sentence, the average sentence for a federal penitentiary is 1,787 days. When those 1,000 people get out, they will have now met the arbitrary 1,095 nonconsecutive days test. They can go anywhere they want in the world after they are released from a federal prison in Canada, and, because they have spent that time in Canada, any children they might have could now be conferred Canadian citizenship. Should the children of these people who have spent time in a prison who might be the—

[An hon. member]

No, because they are not Canadians.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say to the member for Winnipeg North that it is very simple: If they are the children of Canadian citizens, but not citizens themselves, and are in a federal prison, they can confer citizenship to the second generation, and that is exactly the point the legislation has.

Essentially, Bill C-3 would allow foreign-born individuals who have never lived in Canada to bypass the immigration system and gain citizenship just because a parent spent a few months in Canada years or even decades ago. It would create a plethora of citizens born outside the country with no meaningful connection to Canada whatsoever. That is what grandchildren are.

That is why our party worked collaboratively at committee to improve the bill. Our amendments would have solved the lost Canadians issue but limit potential abuses. These were common-sense proposals, such as requiring knowledge of Canada's official languages and undergoing a security assessment. However, the government has teamed up with the NDP to gut these changes. This is happening despite the NDP not even having a seat at the committee table. Not only is this underhanded, but it also violates the spirit of the democratic process we have in this place.

They even removed our changes that would allow Canadians working overseas in the service of our government to pass on their citizenship. This goes to show that we may have a new Prime Minister, but this is the same old Liberal government.

It should be noted that Bill C-3 is the successor to Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament. The government has basically tried to re-pass the same failed policies as the last government.

This whole debacle arose because the last prime minister refused to challenge a 2009 court decision in Ontario that struck down the previous Harper-era provisions that protected our citizenship system from abuses. Conservatives have always understood that citizenship has an inherent value. After all, a Canadian passport is one of the most valued in the world, offering visa-free travel to 184 countries.

For years, Canadian citizenship was the envy of the world, attracting the best newcomers wishing to better their lives, but years of mismanagement under the Liberal government has harmed the reputation of our citizenship. Where does this value lie? Aristotle defined this concept of citizenship roughly as the right “to rule and be ruled in turn”, being closely associated with the ideas of civic participation in the polis. His ideas of citizenship were still primitive compared with today.

Rome would expand on these ideas by defining the rights of citizens as being tied to certain responsibilities, namely the protection of the state through military service. Later, Rousseau and Locke expanded on these ideas to include a more robust system of rights and responsibilities, often referred to as the social contract that defines the obligations that both citizen and state have with each other. While the franchise of citizens has expanded since then, no one disputes these ancient ideas that rights cannot exist without responsibilities.

How does this tie into the current debate on Bill C-3 and on citizenship? Citizenship is the culmination of these ideas. It is the pinnacle of proof of belonging to a certain group of people, these being people who share the same rights and obligations; who have similar underlying values, and in Canada this includes things like the rule of law, a respect for democracy and a tolerance for those with differing views or opinions; and who share similar historical, linguistic and cultural links to each other.

In our system, those who wish to attain this level of belonging are diligent and work hard to attain it. This is not given to them; they earn it. They are the best fits for our system, including their participation in our economic and social fabric. That is why it is disheartening to see the current government say our citizenship basically has no value. If we do not treat our citizenship carefully, why would any other country do so? Will other countries retaliate and reduce our visa-free access?

Citizenship is not a commodity. It should not be bought, and it certainly should not be given away cheaply by way of Bill C-3. To hold Canadian citizenship is to belong to one of the greatest nations on the planet, and that should not be forgotten.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lack of understanding of the legislation.

The member indicated he made an inquiry and found out there are 1,000 people who are not Canadians in our jails. He says that, somehow, their grandchildren are not going to be able to come to Canada, unless this legislation passes. If someone is a permanent resident who goes to jail for two or more years, they cannot become a Canadian citizen. In order for the whole process to kick in, a person has to be rooted to a Canadian citizen.

Would the member, at the very least, acknowledge that the information he has provided is actually wrong?

At the end of the day, you have to be careful because the way you expressed it, many would say, comes across as being anti-immigrant.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Winnipeg North is an experienced member. He knows better than to speak directly to my hon. colleague rather than through you. He was accusing you of doing something, which I am sure you will be the first to admit you were not actually doing.

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

The hon. member was somewhat speaking through me, but I take the hon. member's point.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think my “friend”, and I use that term sparingly, the member for Winnipeg North, missed the point.

If someone who is not a citizen has their child here, and that person commits a crime, they may go to a federal prison, and I have just explained that the average sentence length is 1,787 days. They may then leave prison and go back to another country, where they were originally from or their parents might have been originally from.

Millions upon millions of Canadians have moved here from elsewhere, my wife included. I am not anti-immigrant at all. Thanks for the accusation, though.

Notwithstanding that, if that person's parents are Canadian citizens or have those rights, that means the grandchildren of those parents, through this person who has been incarcerated in Canada, meet that threshold and will now be entitled to Canadian citizenship. I think that is ridiculous.

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

Madam Speaker, I was just wondering if my hon. colleague has any other examples. The last one was great. I was wondering if he has any other examples of how the Liberals have cheapened Canadian citizenship over the last 10 years.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Alberta for bringing this up. I have been here a long time. I was here in 2006, when the Lebanon crisis broke out. We found that there were not only a few hundred or a few thousand but some 60,000 Canadians living abroad in just that particular case, which I think inspired some of the conversations about whether we have citizens of convenience.

I mentioned in my speech that our passport has visa-free access in over 184 countries around the world. There are a lot of people who want to have access to Canadian privileges, want to have access to the Canadian passport and want to have access to Canadian programs and services but might not be contributing much, when it comes to the prosperity of our nation, for example, and I think a 1,095-day tour of Canada is not substantial enough in any way, shape or form.

It makes me wonder if perhaps this is being done to advance the interests of just one particular party in this House, instead of advancing the interests of our country writ large.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a debate that constituents in the riding of Waterloo have been actively participating in, and there is definitely a range of views and perspectives. I hear the member's comments in regard to having a commitment to advancing the prosperity of the country and being a great Canadian.

In the riding of Waterloo, I have a couple of circumstances or situations. One includes a Canadian whose parents were working abroad. This individual has lived her entire life in Canada; speaks both official languages; is a contributing, hard-working, taxpaying citizen; and was born abroad. She went abroad to a conference and was not able to come home because it was suggested, because she was pregnant, that she not travel. She ended up having her baby abroad, and that child is not entitled to Canadian citizenship.

In circumstances such as this, where the family is very committed to Canada and speaks both official languages, does the member agree that the child should have Canadian citizenship?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the case my friend from Waterloo has brought up, but I will simply suggest this: I have been an MP for 20 years. I have had numerous cases of people who have been in this country paying taxes for years and years, and their children, born even in this country, and they speak the language, are being sent back to the country of origin of their parents. However, that is a first-generation decision, and Conservatives always stood up for that first-generation commitment. It is the second-generation one that is most problematic.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara South.

The Liberals drafted flawed legislation in Bill C-3. It was too loose in the requirements that would confer Canadian citizenship. The Conservatives and the Bloc members therefore worked together to tighten up Bill C-3. Our proposed amendments were guardrails that would prevent second-order abuses. These amendments were voted on and approved at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. However, the NDP members and the Liberals united yesterday to undo the positive changes that we so carefully crafted at committee and that would harmonize the pathways to citizenship across descent and naturalization. As such, Conservatives will not be able to support this legislation.

Today I stand baffled at the complete disregard for the committee process that was shown yesterday. As such, I want to hold my Liberal colleagues accountable to the promises they made on June 19 about sending Bill C-3 to committee and receiving amendments. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said the following: “I very much look forward to members discussing and debating this and receiving any amendments or constructive advice.” In response to the minister, I would define our amendments as constructive. We built upon what was presented in Bill C-3 and merely added guardrails.

The deputy House leader of the government said, “we are happy to bring in amendments that make sense, in committee, and work together with all parties”. In response to the deputy government House leader, I want to emphasize that the amendments were crafted by both Bloc members and Conservatives. If by “all parties”, the member is referring to recognized parties, it seems that everyone was accounted for in these amendments.

The member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre stated, “That is exactly what the committee process is for. We know that bills go to committee and get amended. If Conservative members feel this does not allow for a substantial connection, then let us have that conversation at committee. That is exactly what we should do.”

The member further stated, “Of course, all bills need improvement. Let us get it to committee. Let us work fast at committee, make the improvements necessary, bring it back for third reading and pass it.”

In response to the member, all I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree. We worked through the committee process to have our important conversations and to improve the bill. We crafted the proposed amendments with care, yet the New Democrats and Liberals have shown, through their actions, that they do not respect the committee process.

Finally, not to belabour these points, please let me end with a question by the hon. member of Parliament for Waterloo: “Does the member agree that the right way to provide suggestions and amendments to the legislation would be at committee?” In response to the hon. member, my reply is yes, amendments are to be made at committee. I must ask, then, why have we undone all of these carefully crafted committee amendments?

At this juncture with Bill C-3, I do not even see why there is a Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Why did I spend several afternoons at the committee working with my Conservative and Bloc colleagues to improve this legislation when all of this work done by recognized opposition parties can be undone by a party that the Canadian voters chose to punish with only seven seats?

With the remaining time, I want to briefly give an overview of the common-sense amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc members passed in committee. With every amendment, let us examine whether, in any way, they would infringe on a group we know as lost Canadians.

First, we proposed amending the three-year presence in Canada, to be achieved within a five-year time frame. This is not a high bar. Certainly any lost Canadian would want to spent 36 months in Canada within a 60-month time frame. That is only a high bar for Canadians of convenience who want Canada to remain open to them as an insurance policy if geopolitical affairs go south in their current country of residence.

Second, we proposed adding requirements around language proficiencies, citizenship knowledge and security checks. That is not a high bar. Certainly, any lost Canadian should already know how to speak one of our official languages, should already know about the duties of citizenship and should already have a clean criminal record. It is a high bar only for Canadians of convenience who struggle to speak our official languages well and who struggle to understand the values of our nation. These are the people who want to enjoy the privileges of a Canadian passport without the duties of contribution to our society.

Third, we proposed adding two reporting requirements for the Minister of Immigration, where the first would be on the number of citizenships granted by the enactment of Bill C-3, and the second would be on the number of security screening exemptions. Again, that is not a high bar. Certainly, every lost Canadian would like a living record of their ranks' regaining citizenship. Certainly lost Canadians would want the Canadian public to be made aware of exemptions made for people in their ranks with criminal records. This is a high bar only for Liberals who do not want a living record of all Canadians of convenience to whom they granted citizenship.

If Canada as a whole were a municipal community, the Conservative and Bloc members would be councillors who merely wish to put speed bumps on our residential roads. Functionally, all our proposed amendments were speed bumps that would have made it harder to drive 80 kilometres per hour in a residential zone. Lost Canadians already know how to drive in Canadian residential zones; they would simply endure a few speed bumps and be on their merry way to regaining their driver’s licence, which is a good metaphor for Canadian citizenship.

Canadians of convenience want to drive at highway speeds in our residential zones and then head immediately back to where they came from, with our official driver’s licence in hand. The speed bumps do not bother someone who intends to live as a resident here in our Canadian community; they are a bother only for tourists who want to zip in and out of Canada, acquiring our status symbols without contributing to the society that gave those symbols status.

Conservatives will not support the current Bill C-3, which the old NDP-Liberal coalition stripped of the amendments so carefully crafted in committee. We Conservatives stand with all proud Canadians and lost Canadians against the mutilated Bill C-3 that the NDP-Liberal coalition cut up to serve Canadians of convenience.

When the next geopolitical flashpoint emerges, how much will the NDP-Liberal coalition take from the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers to fund a vacation bailout for Canadians of convenience?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly remind the member that we are here at this moment debating this bill because the bill the Harper government brought into law was found by the courts to be unconstitutional under the charter. They have given the House until November 20 to pass a law to remedy that circumstance. As a result of the illegal law, there are many Canadians who are disenfranchised.

For example, a very good friend of mine was born of two Canadian parents who were working abroad. She was born outside Canada. Of course, she returned to Canada, is a Canadian citizen, lived here her whole life, got her education and now is working in France, where she had two children of her own. She is unable to pass Canadian citizenship to them. Under the law, even though she is a Canadian citizen, she could not, because she was born outside the country. These are the real-life circumstances we are trying to remedy with the proposed law.

Does the member oppose ensuring that Canadians remain Canadians by making sure their children also get Canadian citizenship?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me remind the Liberal government again that when the law was struck down by the Ontario courts, the Liberal government had every opportunity and all the time it needed to repeal that decision, but it never did. It has done nothing about it. Now that the deadline is coming, the government just all a the sudden wakes up and says it needs to do this. It is rushing this through without due consideration for all Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague addressed the rather worrisome issue of these lost Canadians. We are aware that there is a court ruling, and the amendments we proposed respond to the court's ruling. We want to determine what constitutes a substantial connection to Canada. As a matter of fact, we copied the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad so that there would be one set of rules for everyone.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, we truly worked together and considered the value of Canadian citizenship and what it means for Canadians. The amendments we put together would have addressed, as the member mentioned, the naturalization process. People should have a clean criminal record, understand Canadian culture and, most importantly, speak English or French.

That is not too much to ask, so we do not understand why the Liberal government and the NDP are trying to rip this away from us so the bill would create another class of Canadian citizens who know nothing about Canada and who do not necessarily value Canadian citizenship.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Markham—Unionville is the embodiment of what the Conservatives have been trying to say, which is that to be a Canadian citizen requires, or should require, a commitment to and an investment in Canada.

Can the member, as someone who was not born in Canada, speak to the value of Canadian citizenship and what that should mean for people?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, truly we are talking about the values of being a Canadian citizen. My grandfather came to Canada when he was 15 years old, but because of the law of the day, my grandmother could not come here. My mother was born in China, and later I was born in Hong Kong. Therefore, by definition, I am a lost Canadian.

However, we went through the proper immigration channels, the residency requirements and all the various citizenship tests. That proves to me that it is valuable to go through the process so people can integrate into Canadian society and be positive role models for the country.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is fortuitous, or even perhaps unfortunate, that I may be the last speaker on the Conservative side to speak to the legislation before the House. I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will have another question for me, because he always does, and I appreciate his interjections.

I am a new member of Parliament. I came from the business community. I am probably, I think, the oldest rookie in the House of Commons, and I am perplexed by the process the legislation came through. I spoke at second reading, and the parliamentary secretary asked me a pointed question after my speech, which was why we were holding the bill up at second reading and why we would not let the Liberals take it to committee, where we could make concrete and substantial amendments to it. He said that committee was where we could make a better bill, and he asked why we were filibustering on the floor of the House of Commons.

I wish we were still at second reading, because the committee members, including the member for Markham—Unionville, spent hours and hours talking about substantial and reasonable amendments to the legislation. With the support of our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, we were successful in making proposals to make the bill a much better piece of legislation.

The original legislation was fundamentally bad, and now that the amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc managed to get through at committee have been reversed, as my colleague said, what a waste of time this has been. We have wasted weeks and weeks on the legislation, only to come back today to where we started. I am very disappointed.

The government members asked us at the beginning of the session to collaborate and co-operate with them. They asked us to give them things they could work with to help them build better legislation. We did that, and we see today at third reading that it was all for naught.

I want to tell a bit of story. Three of my grandparents were born in the U.K., so my father and, I think, a couple of my uncles were born in the U.K. My father was entitled to citizenship, and his was the last generation that would have automatically been entitled to citizenship in the U.K.

Canada and the U.K. share a sovereign. Canada is a parliamentary democracy in the British tradition. My roots go back to England and Wales, yet I am not entitled to British citizenship. In addition to that, I did my graduate work in the U.K., in England; I studied there. That did not entitle me to U.K. citizenship.

Under this legislation, those two factors would provide me with citizenship, if I were outside Canada studying for three or four years, or spending 1,095 days in the country. Countries across the world are limiting these opportunities. The legislation is nothing more than chain migration. It is the postnational mentality, where there is no more value to citizenship. It does not seem that the government puts a highly regarded value on citizenship now.

Most of the Liberals who have been talking today have been giving examples about first and second generations. The legislation would provide access in perpetuity to Canadian citizenship. Someone would not need to speak the language, go through a security check or have a substantial knowledge of Canada. They would not go through the normal citizenship process that people who want to come here through normal citizenship applications do.

I do not think it is unreasonable, in the amendments we proposed to the legislation, to suggest that pegging a value on citizenship should be based on having a substantial connection to Canada, not just 1,095 days or a five-year period, or just that someone went to school here to get a degree or spent the summers at somebody's cottage. In the bill, this is exactly what would give someone the access to Canadian citizenship, and that, to me, is wrong.

It is also not unreasonable to suggest that people who want to get citizenship but who are multiple generations down the line should go through a security and background check. We want people with good records, not criminal records, to be part of our country. We also believe it is not unreasonable for these people to speak one of our two official languages, and that, in the legislation, would also not have to be the case.

There have been several iterations of this legislation from previous parliaments. Those iterations also failed on the floor of the House of Commons before the last election, but this new piece of legislation today, which has now gone back to its original form, is severely flawed. The Conservatives would have supported a bill that had the substantial and reasonable amendments that we proposed, with the support of our Bloc colleagues. They would have made this bill a lot better.

We are now faced with a budget coming in a few hours that will provide a generational impact, as noted by the government. It is a “generational” budget, but it is also going to be a generational budget of debt. With this legislation, Bill C-3, the generational impact of access to citizenship would undermine the value of that citizenship and saddle other generations with the debt we are imposing on them today. That is unfair.

We on this side of the House believe the value of Canadian citizenship should mean something more than just having a loose connection to this country. It would undermine the fabric and history of our country. When we see the flag beside the Speaker, we need to understand the roots of it, what it means to be a Canadian and what it means to understand the history of our country and the education, knowledge, language and security of that flag as a meaningful representation of citizenship.

I am disappointed that this legislation is now reverting back to a very bad piece of legislation simply because the government feels it has been pressed into doing something by the end of November. The government had the option to appeal the decision of the superior court; it did not. There were several layers of judicial applications that could have been proceeded with that would have given the government more time. Early in this session of Parliament, we had an opportunity to get the bill right. Despite the arbitrary deadline the government believes is there, there were options to have it extended again.

In conclusion, I am saddened to say as a new member of Parliament, having gone through this whole process and understanding the legislative process, that I believed the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was being sincere when he said to me that the bill should go to committee, where we can make solid amendments to benefit it and make it better. We did that, and we are back to where we are now. That process seems to me to have been a waste of time. For that, I am sorry to see we are back to where we started.

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

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would say to the new member that there are plenty of opportunities at the committee stage for amendments to pass, but we have to look at the circumstances surrounding the amendments that were being proposed and supported by two entities of the House. It is the government that is ultimately responsible for getting legislation through.

The essence of this legislation is to enable a grandparent, as a Canadian, to see a grandchild ultimately receive Canadian citizenship. That is the principle, the essence, of the legislation. I do not believe the Conservatives as a whole really appreciate the value of having a birthright for that grandchild.

Does the member not recognize the true value of a grandchild having birthright citizenship? The Ontario Superior Court, by the way, happens to agree.