Debates of June 19th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

This is not the first time that this type of bill has been before the House. We were able to work together on the second iteration of Bill C-71. I have really enjoyed working with him.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain why it is important to keep the promise that we made to the families that we met at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We had discussions with a number of families, some of whom are from Quebec. They want to see progress. They told us how important it is to avoid introducing amendments that will slow things down and said that it is time to pass this bill.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if there are good amendments, I will consider them and support them. If they are bad, I will consider them and not support them. That is pretty much it.

This should not have dragged on since 2009, however. The Liberals were a majority from 2015 to 2019. They could have fixed this mistake promptly. Sadly, however, they made no effort whatsoever to address this injustice.

Today, they are pleased to introduce this bill, and I can understand why. Still, why did it take them more than 15 years to correct such a ridiculous mistake? It was a blatant injustice, yet it took them 15 years to make it right. When the time comes to reform the asylum seeker system, how long is that going to take? That is the problem at the moment with the Liberal government and its way of managing the immigration system.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean on his speech. Everyone who knows him and has had the opportunity to work with him knows that he is an extremely thorough individual who is capable of working across party lines in the best interests of the issues that he is working on. Immigration is something that is very important to him.

After the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship's speech, I asked her a question about the temporary foreign worker program. My colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean made the point that the government has implemented one-size-fits-all measures across Canada without taking into account regional realities.

The result is that, right now, families of temporary foreign workers, who are well integrated back home in Drummondville, are not able to get their permits renewed because of these measures. All of these measures are very confusing. The responsibility sharing between Quebec and Ottawa is not working very well.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks we should do about this issue.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we put forward proposals regarding temporary foreign workers and the measures that were implemented last fall. We asked for the government to restore the previous measures, for example, to allow Quebec companies to hire up to 20% of their workforce as temporary foreign workers, except in Montreal and Laval.

That is what we mean when we talk about unilateral measures. The problem is that the government always uses a bazooka instead of a scalpel when it comes to immigration. To that end, the Bloc Québécois has good suggestions that are in keeping with the reality of entrepreneurs, newcomers and foreign workers, which is the most important thing.

I am asking the government to listen to us. We are here to work, co-operate and make constructive suggestions. We hope that the government will listen, but not just to us. I hope that it will also listen to foreign workers and entrepreneurs from every region in Quebec.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too worked well with my hon. colleague on the immigration committee in previous Parliaments.

With this particular bill, Bill C-3, which is substantively the same as Bill C-71, Canada will finally be charter-compliant with the gender discrimination components of the Citizenship Act. Is that not something we should actually act on?

On the question around substantial connections, there are provisions in the bill that speak to substantial connections. To his point that people actually—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Lac-Saint-Jean the time to respond.

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean has 30 seconds to respond.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately did not have time to hear the entire question.

All we can say is that Bill C‑3 will correct an injustice once and for all. The amendments from Bill C‑71 are already included in Bill C‑3. In fact, it is as though we were passing Bill C‑71 without the parliamentary obstruction that took place at the time.

I think that now is the time to do it.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this 45th Parliament to speak about Bill C-3 and the transformative power of Canadian citizenship. At its heart, this bill is about people, real families, their histories, their sacrifices and their deep and abiding connection to Canada, no matter where their careers or lives may take them.

Many Canadians live and work abroad, in international development, arts and sciences, education, the humanitarian sector or global business, just to name a few. These citizens maintain deep links to Canada, often returning to raise their children, care for loved ones and build new communities. Ensuring that their children, whether born or adopted abroad, can share in that identity is not just about fairness; it strengthens our country's cohesion and global outreach.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3. I would also like to sincerely thank all those who spoke before me to defend the rights of Canadians affected by the previous amendments to the Citizenship Act.

This bill represents a new and important step toward more inclusive citizenship. All members of the House recognize what a privilege it is to have Canadian citizenship and how proud we can be of that. From our majestic landscapes and the richness of our diversity to the shared values that bring us together, being Canadian means being part of something profoundly meaningful. Values such as inclusion, respect for human rights, environmental stewardship and peacekeeping are an integral part of our society and influence our policies, our culture, and the daily lives of every Canadian.

Canada is recognized around the world for its open-mindedness and its commitment to multiculturalism. Since the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed in 1988, we have strengthened those principles at the core of our institutions. Canada's approach to multiculturalism emphasizes the active integration and celebration of Canadians' diverse cultural identities. This approach has created a society in which people of different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds can maintain their identity, be proud of their roots and feel at home. It can be seen across the country; communities from coast to coast to coast reflect this diversity and are proud of it.

Our commitment to human rights is at the heart of who we are as Canadians. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the fundamental rights we share as a society: freedom of expression, association and religion; equality before the law; protection against discrimination, and the list goes on.

This commitment is also evident in international efforts. Whether standing up for the rights of women, LGBTQ people or people in a vulnerable situation, Canada plays an active role.

Our immigration policies and measures to protect refugees also reflect these values. Canadians also care deeply about protecting our environment. Our natural landscapes remind us of this responsibility, from the Atlantic coast in the east to the mountains in the west to the Arctic in the north. We know that this desire to preserve nature is essential for future generations. These values are reflected in our environmental policies and initiatives aimed at fighting climate change, preserving biodiversity and promoting sustainable development. Our country has made significant progress in promoting renewable energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting conservation efforts.

Canada is also known as a peaceful country thanks to its history of peacekeeping and international co-operation. Since the Second World War, Canada has played an active role in peacekeeping missions. Our forces have participated in a number of UN-led international missions, thereby strengthening our reputation as a committed and trustworthy country. Our commitment to peacekeeping reflects our core values of diplomacy, conflict resolution and humanism. Canadian soldiers have served and continue to serve in peacekeeping missions around the world to help protect conflict-affected populations.

Canada's foreign policy also emphasizes international co-operation, development assistance and support for institutions such as the United Nations and NATO.

Social justice and equity also define Canadian society. Our commitment is clear. We are working to narrow social gaps and ensure that everyone has access to essential services such as health care, education and a reliable social safety net. Canada's universal health care system, public education system and social assistance programs are designed to promote the well-being of Canadians and give everyone a fair chance.

Building stronger relationships also means recognizing our shared history, including its most painful chapters. The government is continuing to work on reconciliation by responding to the calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's final report. In partnership with indigenous communities, we are building an inclusive country founded on dignity, truth and shared pride. These are the principles that define who we are as Canadians today. By guiding our policies and influencing the way we live together, these values allow us to build an inclusive and equitable society committed to both its citizens and the world around us.

Citizenship provides access to security, rights and obligations, and opportunities. It helps people feel fully included in Canadian society and actively participate in it. It has many benefits that make life better for individuals and for communities.

One of those advantages is the fundamental right to actively participate in the country's democratic process. This includes the right to vote in federal, provincial, territorial and municipal elections, which empowers citizens to have a direct impact on government policy. It is also important to note that only citizens can run for office, giving them the opportunity to represent their communities and contribute to the governance of Canada. All Canadian citizens also enjoy all the legal protections and rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This ensures that their civil liberties and rights as individuals are protected at the highest level, in addition to providing a solid framework for justice and equality.

Another important advantage of Canadian citizenship is access to the Canadian passport. This passport is recognized worldwide as one of the most valuable and offers visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to many countries. Canadian citizens also benefit from consular assistance abroad, particularly in emergencies or situations of political unrest, ensuring they are supported wherever they travel since the Canadian passport is respected worldwide.

Canadian citizenship also offers security and peace of mind. Unlike permanent residency, which can be lost if residency requirements are not met, citizenship cannot be revoked unless it was obtained fraudulently.

Canadian citizens can access employment opportunities across the country. They can apply for any job, including those that require a high security clearance or those that are reserved exclusively for citizens, such as in the public service. They are also free to work in any province or territory without restrictions. Citizenship also opens the door to many educational benefits. Citizens can receive certain scholarships, grants or other forms of financial assistance that are not available to permanent residents. Many institutions also charge lower tuition to citizens, which makes post‑secondary education more affordable and more accessible.

Canadian citizenship is recognized worldwide for its many advantages, including the ability to travel, work or live abroad. Canada also allows dual citizenship, meaning that citizens can keep their Canadian citizenship when they are a citizen of another country, which gives them more options abroad. Citizenship helps people continue to support loved ones and bring family members to Canada. For example, people can apply to sponsor their parents and grandparents. Citizenship plays an important role in family reunification and strengthens communities across the country. It fosters a deeper sense of belonging and national identity. Canadian citizens are fully integrated into our society and culture, making it easier for them to get involved in their local community and civic activities, and contribute to societal development. Their sense of belonging strengthens the country's social fabric.

Canadian citizenship is not just a symbol. It has a real impact on a person's life, rights and opportunities. Our goal is to have a fair, transparent and accessible citizenship system for everyone who is entitled to it. That is why we must pass the Citizenship Act and restore citizenship to those who lost it or never obtained it. In 2009, amendments to the Citizenship Act limited citizenship by descent to the first generation, meaning that a parent who is a Canadian citizen can pass citizenship to a child born abroad if the parent was born in Canada or naturalized before the child was born. Because passing on citizenship by descent is limited to the first generation, a Canadian citizen born abroad to a parent who was also born abroad cannot pass citizenship to their child born outside Canada. They also cannot apply for citizenship for a child they adopted abroad beyond the first generation. Bill C-3 will allow access to citizenship by descent beyond the first generation, in a spirit of inclusiveness and respect for citizenship.

Bill C‑3 will restore citizenship to those we call lost Canadians, individuals who either were never able to become citizens or who lost their citizenship due to outdated provisions of former citizenship legislation. Although the government has already implemented measures to remedy the situation for most lost Canadians, some individuals are still affected. These changes seek to resolve the issues of lost Canadians and their descendants. Among other things, the amendments address the situation of Canadian descendants affected by the first-generation limit.

The bill also provides clear guidelines for obtaining Canadian citizenship by descent. Once the bill is passed, Canadian citizens born abroad will be able to pass on their citizenship to their children born abroad beyond the first generation if they can prove that they have a substantial connection to Canada. If a Canadian parent born abroad has spent at least three cumulative years in Canada before the birth of their child, they will be able to pass on their citizenship to that child.

We also want to continue to reduce disparities between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadian parents. Any child adopted abroad by a Canadian parent before the bill comes into force will be eligible for direct citizenship for adoptees, even if they were previously excluded due to the first-generation limit. For children born abroad and adopted by Canadian citizens, when the bill comes into force, if the adoptive parent, who was born abroad, can prove substantial ties to Canada prior to the adoption, direct citizenship may be requested for the adopted child.

In short, Bill C‑3 will restore citizenship to those who have been denied it and provide a fair and consistent framework for citizenship by descent. Building on the progress made by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Senate through former Bill S-245, these amendments further refine the proposed changes and comprehensively address the concerns raised by the courts.

Filibustering slowed the progress of Bill S-245 and Bill C-71, making it even more clear that Bill C-3 is essential and must move forward without unnecessary delay. As a pillar of our identity, Canadian citizenship unites us around fundamental values of democracy, inclusion and equality. This bill strengthens our legislation to ensure fair rights and equal opportunities for all.

As a government, we must remain vigilant in ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a beacon of and a commitment to inclusivity, fairness and security. That is why we have introduced Bill C-3: to ensure that access to citizenship remains fair and transparent.

At a time when misinformation and division can threaten confidence in public institutions, Canada must show that its commitment to fairness extends across borders. Providing thoughtful, inclusive pathways to citizenship beyond the first generation affirms that Canadian identity is shaped not only by place of birth, but also by connection, contribution and values. The government's role is not only to protect the rights of Canadian citizens, but also to provide clarity on the citizenship process and to enact legislation that reflects the values of equality, inclusivity and justice.

I urge all parties in the House to support this very important piece of legislation.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech, and it honestly sounded like most of it was written by the government PR department. It was something I might have heard on a reel in EPCOT Center at the Canada Pavilion, although there was some discussion about Bill C-3.

When this was at committee last, Conservatives asked many questions about how many people it would potentially give citizenship to, and we had trouble getting a number from the government. I wonder if the member can enlighten us on how many people this bill would affect and how many new citizens it would create. If she does not have a number, I would ask if she thinks it makes sense to create a new citizenship bill without actually knowing how it is going to impact Canada.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of my colleague's words or his question. What I said in my speech is a matter of pride. I am showcasing what Canada is, what Canada stands for and who we are as a people. No, it was not an EPCOT reel, and I do not have a number.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for talking about preserving the institutions of Canada that we all believe in and that protect the rights of Canadians. Maybe my hon. colleague can expand on the fact that this bill really does go to the foundations of our institutions that we uphold and that are there to protect Canadians, and would make sure that if a soldier went to serve Canada in another country, their children's children should not have to worry about ever losing their citizenship from a parent who served our country.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's deep question, and this is what I was talking about in my speech: the pride we have as Canadians in serving other nations, in our humanity toward others, and in expressing that humanity and bringing, or trying to bring, justice and peace to those regions afflicted by conflicts.

There are people who work on an international level, and it could be multi-generational. This kind of proposed legislation helps those people who are out there serving the world, representing Canada, to not be fearful for their security and the security of their future generations.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Superior Court ruling that ostensibly was the genesis of this legislation said it was unconstitutional for Canada to deny automatic citizenship to children born abroad to parents who were also born overseas but have a substantial connection to Canada.

Could my colleague describe what her government believes “substantial connection to Canada” means, and where that is contained in the bill?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that significant question. As I cited in my speech as an example, if a parent was born outside of Canada and has lived in Canada for three years cumulatively, this would be one of those scenarios where we can provide that kind of citizenship to a future generation with a parental affiliation.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was interesting because, again, I do not think it addressed the bill at all.

The big question we have here is this. Every expert has looked at the number of people this might open Canadian citizenship to as more or less a free pass. If the member cannot arrive at some number here about how many people we are inviting in for Canadian citizenship, then the bill is moot because Canadians do not understand what this is. If the Liberals are going to fill a hole that is necessary, and that might impact 100 Canadians who should be Canadians, by letting in more than 100,000 Canadians to have Canadian citizenship, then I am going to suggest that, potentially, they are taking the wrong approach.

Would my colleague across the way endeavour to look at the numbers that would be impacted by this bill, and will she come back to the House with that estimation at some point in time?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague who wants numbers, I am sure the Conservatives will come up with some, but I will give him some numbers.

In 2009 and 2015, approximately 20,000 people known as lost Canadians were able to acquire citizenship. That is 2009 and 2015. In seven years, there were 20,000 people who obtained it, not hundreds of thousands as the colleagues across the way keep trying to insinuate. There is just a small group of people, it seems, who are left in this situation. This situation does need to be remedied, because those who are working abroad, who work internationally and who serve, as I have mentioned, Canada and what Canada stands for need that security and peace of mind for their service and their dedication to our country as well.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we did just hear a number from the member. That is great. I have heard that number before, in relation to just one segment of the bill. However, I do not believe the main part of the bill, which is the citizenship by descent for generation after generation, is covered by that number. We have heard estimates of hundreds of thousands of people. If we do not get numbers from the government, then how are we supposed to know?

Can the member provide the number of how many people will be impacted by citizenship by descent? Will the government be providing that information for committee when we get to that work?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a work in progress. Something needs to come up, and it will. I hope we will get some numbers. However, as I mentioned, in seven or eight years, it was only 20,000. There is just a small group left, and we hope to cover those people as well.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just on that point about the 20,000 Canadians who have been able to receive citizenship through this program, and the leftover Canadians, many people have applied to be part of these lost Canadians to receive their citizenship. The IRCC has been working to make sure it is only people who are considered lost Canadians who have been able to receive this grant of citizenship.

Maybe the member could talk about the meticulous work that goes into making sure we are paying attention to who is applying and we are giving it to people who merit it.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is entirely accurate in saying that IRCC does treat these cases case by case and not through blanket approval. Everything will be looked at. As to the number, I know the members across the way are trying to insinuate that hundreds of thousands of people are going to come and flood Canada. I have repeated that this is very specific legislation.

In the eight-year gap between 2009 until 2015, only 20,000 people asked for such provisions. To try to frighten people or discourage them from working internationally or representing Canada or being part of the armed forces does not serve Canada, Canadians or the world, and our commitments, in any way.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard the member say in responding to questions is that she did not have a number, but then did have a number, but did not, and that it might be 100,000, which is small, but that it might also be 20,000 or maybe a dozen.

The point here is that the Liberals are essentially, with this bill, enabling endless chain migration with no consecutive residency requirement, which actually devalues Canadian citizenship. The PBO said it would be over 100,000 people in five years.

Why has the bill been presented in this way?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned many, many times, in eight years only 20,000 people applied. It is for people who have applied. Not everybody is going to apply. That is what we need to look at. We do not know what people's intentions are or what they plan on doing. We just know that for people who apply, it will be looked at case by case.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are here debating a bill today that the Liberals have proposed, which would give endless chain migration, the ability to pass down citizenship ad infinitum, to anybody. We just heard a speech, for those who are tuning in, that shows why this bill is so poorly designed.

A member from the Liberal Party stood up and, over and over again in questions and answers, which will be interesting to watch back, did not know how many people this would apply to in the future. At a time in Canadian history when we are talking about what the value of Canadian citizenship should mean, that the Liberal government has proposed such a reckless bill without really thinking through the implications really speaks to the utter disarray and brokenness of a decade of Liberal failure in Canada's immigration system.

The consensus on immigration used to be universal. It used to be a non-partisan understanding that immigration was a good thing and that numbers should be set in accordance with Canada's capacity to do things like house newcomers, provide them with jobs, let them start businesses or have health care. Now we know, based on public opinion polling, most Canadians realize the truth: We are in a jobs crisis, we are in a health care crisis, and we are also in a housing crisis.

Because the Liberals have increased immigration to such unsustainable levels, they are the ones who broke the consensus on immigration. Instead of fixing those issues, instead of listening to the concerns of Canadians, they tabled an ill-thought-out bill that would enable intergenerational, without limit, chain migration without any consecutive residency requirements, any substantial presence in Canada. That is just so wrong and irresponsible.

I am going to tell members what happened with this bill. This is what I suspect happened, because Liberals have come to talk to me privately about how incompetent they think the Liberal immigration minister is. They are shocked, and rightly so, that the Prime Minister would put someone so remarkably incompetent in that role on such an important file.

Let me give proof of how incompetent the immigration minister is. She was an immigration minister for eight years in Nova Scotia, and during that period of time, audits showed massive failures in vetting and setting levels and no response to Auditor General recommendations. She even said there should be no limits on immigration into her province. She said it in a CBC interview. She said there should be no limits, no caps.

Now the Liberals have put that minister in here, and if anybody has been watching her performance in the House, it has been abysmal. She does not understand basic numbers on how many people are coming in and did not really have a grasp on how many people were leaving the country who were supposed to. Now she has tabled this bill.

This is what I think happened. We have an incompetent minister who has to deal with this issue. There was a court ruling that the government chose not to appeal and needed to address somehow. Rather than take an approach proposed by a Conservative member from the other place, which had a tight, narrowly defined solution that would have addressed the court ruling, the Liberals teamed up with a far left, now independent, member of this place to utterly gut that bill and extend Canadian citizenship, turning it almost into a low-grade frequent flyer program. It is basically like someone would need to scan once every five years to get their loyalty program. That is really what this bill is.

A competent minister would have taken all stakeholder concerns and said that for the few people to whom the lost Canadian ruling applied, we should have a tight, narrowly defined bill to address it. That is what the minister should have done. She should have listened to the stakeholder feedback and endless debate in the previous immigration committee and fixed the bill such that it could have been something that could be passed through the House.

Instead, I do not even think the minister read the bill, to be honest. I think she probably took a memorandum to cabinet with whatever the department gave to her and said, “Just table the same thing.” That is what she did. I bet if we had the ability to question her at length, she could not go through the provisions of this bill. To me, that is not responsible government, given the impact of this bill, so let us talk about what this bill would do, because it is really important for Canadians.

With what colleagues opposite in the Liberal Party have been putting up in debate today, we can tell by their answers that they do not understand what the bill does either. They are going to just blindly vote for it without thinking through the enormous, non-partisan concerns that the bill would create for the value of Canadian citizenship.

Essentially, the bill would eliminate something called the “first-generation limit”. This was a provision that was put in place by a previous, Conservative government to put restrictions on how Canadian citizenship could be automatically passed down to people who do not live in Canada anymore, for the most part. For colleagues who want a little history lesson, this was precipitated by a situation that happened roughly 15 years ago, during the conflict in Lebanon, when there were what we would refer to as “Canadians of convenience”, or people who had no substantive ties to the country who all of a sudden claimed Canadian citizenship so that the Government of Canada would be obligated to evacuate them. At that time, that initiative, in 2006, cost the Canadian taxpayer almost $100 million, plus endless other ancillary benefits. Most of these people, the vast majority, had no ties to Canada at all. Most of them left and went back almost immediately thereafter. This raised serious questions.

It is tough to talk about conflict, but in this place we have to talk about what the obligations of the Government of Canada are to people who do not have substantive ties to Canada and then claim citizenship. To be clear to anybody watching this, I am not talking about the small number of people for whom the first-generation limit that was imposed affected. This is why a Conservative member from the other place did the job of the government for it in the last Parliament and tabled a private member's bill to close that loophole. We support those provisions. It is why a Conservative member from the other place put them forward. However, a now independent member, who lost party status in the last election, worked with the government to completely gut that bill and turn it into a chain migration bill, which is what we have here today, and that is not right.

We need to have a conversation in this country about the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship, and the minister started her speech with those words, saying there are rights and responsibilities to Canadian citizenship. However, her speech was entirely about the rights and failed on the responsibilities, and that is why the Liberal approach to immigration has been so broken.

Even on a macro level, members will remember the mantra of the last decade: Canada is a postnational state with no identity. Well, if we are a postnational state with no identity, what does Canadian citizenship mean? If we are tabling bills that would allow people with no substantial connection to Canada to, ad nauseam, forever and ever, pass on citizenship with no ties to this country, then that denigrates every person, including people who have immigrated to Canada and become citizens, started businesses here, worked as health care workers, paid taxes and become part of our Canadian pluralism. It denigrates citizenship for us all; it denigrates identity for us all. The beauty of our country, of course, is our pluralism, and it has saddened me as a Canadian to watch people across the country, Liberal, Conservative and NDP alike, lose faith in the value of immigration to Canada. Again, it is because the Liberal government has focused entirely on some sort of false, broken understanding of the rights of Canadian citizenship and has done nothing about the responsibilities.

Let us talk about the responsibilities. In the bill, there would be absolutely no requirement for somebody to live in Canada over consecutive days in order to receive Canadian citizenship. Practically, for a person living abroad, the bill would make it so that a great-great-great-great-great-grandma in the future, or somewhere in a person's ancestry chain, somewhere in their family tree, someone had Canadian citizenship, and then, sometime over their entire life period, they would only need to spend slightly over 1,000 days in Canada. It could be over 70 years, it could be over 80 years, but sometime, not consecutively, they just need to spend that amount of time in Canada, and then they would get Canadian citizenship.

We have to start talking about the rights that these people would then obtain. Practically, they would be able to get access to the Canadian health care system. Right now, Canada does not have any obligation even for countries that have tax treaties for people to file taxes when they have a citizenship situation like that. I am not talking about double taxation here. They would not have any obligation, in their responsibilities as a Canadian with citizenship, to pay for those services.

That is the way the bill is written right now. That is what it functionally means. Part of the problem in this place, sometimes, is that people have to think about what a bill would mean in 10, 15, 20 or 25 years.

Let us talk about how many people this could impact. In debate today, over and over, Conservative colleagues brought up the fact that in the last Parliament, for months, we tried to find out how many people this could impact. The now independent member, formerly NDP, lost massively in the last election because of policies like what this bill would support.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled. Members are saying, “Well, the NDP is not in government.” I do not know why the Liberals would just support their bill. It is completely strange.

Here is the thing: We do not know how many people the bill would affect. The government could not say, over a 10-, 20- or 30-year period, how many people would be able to draw health care benefits in Canada, draw on the services of our country.

We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Again, he was kind of stonewalled in his analysis on the government, because I do not think it wants the public to know. I think the government knows how many people this could impact. Earlier my colleague said there is about four million people currently living abroad that have Canadian citizenship. We could start thinking about the exponential downstream impact the bill would have. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that at a minimum it is going to be 100,000 people over five years. That is his best guess.

Why would the Liberals propose a bill that would essentially allow mass chain migration to this country through automatic Canadian citizenship without any sort of substantive tie to the country? It really does speak to motive. Why are they doing this? They could have kept the Conservative bill with just a minimal scope, but no. They did this on purpose, and they have now done it twice. Instead of making amendments to the bill as were required, they have now done this twice.

There are two things that are missing in the bill that absolutely, 100%, need to be instantly changed. The first is that missing requirement of a substantial connection to Canada. I mentioned, in questions and answers, that the court ruling some of this applied to, which the Conservative bill and not the government tried to address, had a requirement or a definition for a substantial connection to Canada. How have the Liberals defined that? There is nothing. We heard that in the non-answer of the colleague who spoke just before. She could not really define that.

What we need is a substantial connection to Canada. Precedent for this type of situation in virtually every other country around the world is something like five or 10 years in a set period of time. Earlier my colleague from the Bloc asked if it would stop somebody from leaving Canada. It is usually five or more years within seven years, and at least a chunk of that is spent in the country as an adult, over the age of 14 or over the age of 16. That point was brought up in the hours of debate, with witness after witness giving testimony in the last Parliament.

The Liberals could have harmonized that with other jurisdictions around the world, but instead they purposefully tabled a bill with that missing. I think that they did that because, again, they want to have a devaluation of the Canadian citizenship. Let us think about it; it is literally like devaluing currency. If they want to refute me on this point, this should be their response: It should be that they will entertain an amendment to have a consecutive residency requirement, as a bare minimum amendment. That is what I think. That makes sense to me.

The second thing that the bill absolutely needs amended is the fact that there is no security vetting requirement whatsoever for somebody applying for this. Let us think about what that means. If somebody looks up their ancestral food chain and finds an ancestor who held Canadian citizenship, even though that person has never been in the country, they could come, three years over some period of the course of their life, and then be granted Canadian citizenship without having been vetted for any sort of security risk whatsoever. There is an automatic get-into-Canada pass with the bill, and that is not right.

I want to talk about fairness too because there are millions and millions of positive stories. Many people who now work and serve other Canadians in this place have migrated to Canada, played by the rules and played fair through Canada's immigration system. They checked all the boxes, waited for years, had security tests and had all of these different tests. I cannot imagine how they feel looking at this bill. It is not right, and it is not fair.

Again, I want to be very clear: I think one of the things that Canadians have always been proud of, and are proud of and open to today, is the concept of immigration that functions within the context of the pluralism of Canada. That does not work under what the Liberal government has done, which is increase immigration to a level that is so unsustainable that we do not have houses, we do not have health care and we do not have jobs to adequately address everybody in the country, newcomer or not.

I think what has happened here is the Liberals have tabled the bill without amendments, partially because of an incompetent minister. However, they have also put the bill forward without amendments because they put Bill C-2 in place. They broke Canada's asylum system so badly that they had to put the immigration provisions of Bill C-2 in there. That is another debate. I will have a lot to say on that in the future.

There are people, “consultants” in loose quotations, who have made an entire industry of scamming people who want to come to Canada to build a better life. I think the Liberals are afraid to stand up to those people. I think what they try to do is talk out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. That is why the bill came in unamended.

If the Liberals had come in with a bill with a narrow scope that looked a lot like our colleague's bill from the other place, in which she had very tight definitions to address the very real needs of some of the stakeholders who are considered lost Canadians, everybody could have supported that. It would have been fast-tracked. However, the Liberals and the former NDP members stalled the bill at committee because they gutted it and then made it this endless chain migration bill.

I need to hear from the government that it is going to amend the bill so that there is a substantive presence test that includes some sort of consecutive presence, as well as, at a minimum, security vetting for people this would apply to. The government has not signalled that, and every Canadian should be asking why. Conservatives will continue to press the Liberals on this issue because we will not let Canadian citizenship be devalued by poor Liberal legislation and the poor Liberal broken immigration system.