Debates of June 19th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as this is almost certainly my last time speaking in the House before the summer recess, I want to join others in thanking the many hard-working staff around this place, including security, pages, table staff, local officers, committee clerks, etc. I thank them for facilitating the operations of Parliament.

This has been, I think, a short, but significant session. We are starting to get a sense of the character of the government and that it is a kind of chicken dance government. It is elbows up, elbows back down, elbows up, elbows back down, without a lot of consistency in its defence of Canada or in really anything else, but we are going to continue to prosecute the case against the government for the failures it has been responsible for over the last 10 years, and the continuing challenges this country faces as a result of its policies.

By the way, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

I want to wish members well as they prepare for the summer. I have discovered, in the last 24 hours, just how seriously Liberal members take their desire for a summer vacation. Parliament did not sit at all this year until May 26. It is going on recess again at the end of this week.

At the HUMA committee, because we are facing a student unemployment crisis with more than one in five returning students unemployed this summer, Conservatives put forward a motion to have a summer study of student unemployment. We think parliamentarians should be prepared to get to work at committee so that students can get to work. I proposed five committee meetings, which is not a lot of work. It is 10 hours of hearings that could take place over the course of the summer. Liberals said initially they were interested in this. They put forward an amendment to change timelines. Then they voted against the study, killing it. Sadly, the HUMA committee will not be able to get to work this summer on the vital issue of student unemployment because Liberals care more about having the summer they want than giving students the summer they need finding summer jobs in order to get back to work. I hope the students who are struggling with unemployment will hold their Liberal MPs accountable for their decision to vote against a summer study on student unemployment, a study I think we desperately need when one in five returning students are out of work.

We are debating today Bill C-3. This is a bill that makes various changes to the citizenship rules in this country. I will go through the mechanics of it for those who are just joining the debate or those watching at home.

Right now, if a Canadian citizen has a child while abroad, that child is a Canadian citizen as well, but if that child born abroad has a child abroad there is a generation cut-off. Those are the present rules, that one cannot infinitely pass on Canadian citizenship through a family that is living outside of Canada.

I listened to the previous Liberal speaker describe this as arbitrary, that people are being arbitrarily excluded from Canadian citizenship. Actually, this is the opposite of arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if somebody was deciding whether or not they like us or whether or not a person would get citizenship based on the discretion of some bureaucrat or some indeterminate process. This is the opposite of arbitrary. It is a clear rule that is designed to limit Canadian citizenship to those who have ongoing clear connections to Canada.

The new bill would allow Canadian citizenship to be infinitely passed on through a family that, generation after generation, does not live in Canada. It requires, effectively, visits to Canada in order to be able to pass on that citizenship, but it does not require, at any point in that infinite generational passing on of citizenship, for that family to be residents in this country. The obvious problem with that is that citizenship is a compact between a nation of people and an individual. If one is a citizen, one assumes certain rights and responsibilities. I think we need to recognize and affirm the value of citizenship, including both its rights and responsibilities.

I am so grateful to live in a country where our citizenship is defined by shared civic values and a recognition of rights and responsibilities, not by some ethnocultural tie. My ancestors come from various places. Both of my wife's parents were born in Pakistan. I have heritage from all over the world in my family, as I think members all over the House do. We are a great nation because we are defined by shared civic values.

We are defined as one political nation, as one of our founders put it. The significance of that is that it involves rights and responsibilities. A person who is living abroad continues to enjoy all the rights of citizenship, likely desires well for Canada and thinks about ways they can contribute to Canada in the context of their situation. However, a family that lives abroad generation after generation is not paying taxes to Canada or able to be actively involved in Canadian civic life in the way that a person naturally is if they are here in Canada, yet they continue to have the rights of citizenship.

Under this new proposed citizenship law, we could have someone who has never been a resident of Canada, and their parents or grandparents had not been residents of Canada, yet they could come back to Canada for certain vital public services, which are rights that have become, at the point from which their family has not been in Canada, disconnected from the responsibilities that are also supposed to be associated with citizenship.

It is on that basis that Conservatives oppose this bill. We think it weakens Canadian citizenship and the recognition that Canada is an idea, a people and a place. We recognize that there has to be some constraints on citizenship to ensure a continuing connection with this place and an assumption of the rights and responsibilities associated with the common good of Canada.

The rules as they presently exist are not arbitrary. They are clear, fair and they affirm an understanding of citizenship that includes rights and responsibilities. Moreover, I think it is incredibly irresponsible that the government is putting forward legislation to expand and weaken Canadian citizenship without any sense of the potential cost implications. Canadian citizens have certain rights. People whose families have been outside the country for generations assuming the rights of citizenship entails responsibilities for the country. It also entails potential costs for the country, including assistance in emergency situations and a provision of social services, if that person returns to the country. All of these are realities that have to be assumed by Canadian taxpayers.

The government could make a case that it is legitimate and argue for it, but it should do so on the basis of clear numbers. The Liberals should be able to come before the House to say, “We are going to expand citizenship, and it is going to include a certain number of people and these are going to be the cost implications.” However, it is clear from the response I received to my previous question for a government member that there is no desire or attempt to provide that costing.

We have a significant problem in this country with unemployment, pressure on our social services and demands on our country. We need to have a plan to address those demands. In the midst of all of these pressures, for the government to say that it is going to potentially dramatically increase the number of citizens but it does not know how many people that would affect and what the cost associated with that would be, is a major problem.

Canadian citizenship is a great and valuable thing. It is something Canadians have regardless of where they came from or their family background. It entails rights and responsibilities and has to involve a connection and a commitment to this place we love.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives proclaim that they stand for freedom, their careless and reckless approach restricted citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad, stripping countless individuals of their rights and identities as Canadians. As well, under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act, the Conservatives stripped away the citizenship of those born to the second generation abroad at the age of 28. Not only were these measures deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, but they limited citizenship to those whom the Conservatives deemed worthy.

If the Conservatives truly claim to stand for freedom, will they take this opportunity to right their previous wrongs and vote in support of this legislation?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, the member seems to have read a pre-prepared text that did not have much to do with the speech that I gave or the content that I talked about. I want to just say that I firmly reject the implication that freedom means having the most expansive possible citizenship rules. Freedom does not mean that we necessarily need to expand Canadian citizenship, as in this case, to families that have not lived in Canada for generations. I think a part of how we preserve, protect and strengthen freedom in this country is appreciating and affirming the value of Canadian citizenship and the connection to place that has to be associated with that citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He is always so impassioned when he believes in what he is saying. I am surprised, because the law is important to him. It seems to me that the bill before us responds to a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Is he prepared to convince his colleagues in the House of Commons not to respond to a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear.

Our caucus supports the version of the bill that was introduced by Senator Yonah Martin. It deals with measures to be taken in legitimate cases where citizenship should be restored.

That said, Bill C‑3 goes further than what Canadians and the courts are calling for. I cannot support the measures in this bill that I spoke of earlier.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is not in this bill is any sort of security check or background check on the people who might be conferred citizenship. As the member well knows, and as all of us do, security checks can be a really big, enormous, time-consuming part of getting citizenship.

My question to the member is this: What does he think about that? Does he think there should be security checks? How does that compare to the security checks that are already in place for existing people who want to get PRs and the time that it takes? Should there be a comparable process?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member underlines an important point about this legislation, which is the unknown. There would be so many people potentially affected by this change, and the government, as we have seen from responses to my questions, appears to have no estimate of the number of people affected, the cost or the associated issues with having families where, generation after generation, people are not in this country. They are not connected to this country and they are not part of the shared experience of this country, yet they maintain the rights of citizenship.

I think there are all sorts of attendant problems with that, and in opposing this bill, Conservatives are standing up for and defending the idea of a Canadian citizenship that is limited, that is based on clear rules and that is reflective of a connection to this place and an alignment with shared civic values.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C‑3, and specifically about citizenship and immigration.

Citizenship and obtaining it can be a sensitive topic as it can inflame passions for various reasons. There are Canadian citizens who, like me, were born in Canada. There are people who immigrated here and wanted to settle in a country that offered them a way out of poverty or work opportunities. There are different reasons for wanting to live in Canada and become a Canadian.

Today, we are talking about Bill C‑3. People listening to us need to understand that if, one day, a Canadian decides to move to another country, any country, settle down and have children there, those children will have Canadian citizenship. That system and that right exist. No matter whether they move for work or to settle down elsewhere, those children could be Canadians. However, Bill C‑3 proposes that those children, who have never lived in Canada, who have always lived abroad, will be able, at the age of 20 or 30 years, to give their own child Canadian citizenship, when that child has no ties to our country. The father, the mother, the grandfather or grandmother decided to live abroad, so they have no ties here, but they, not to mention their own children, and so on, would automatically get Canadian citizenship. That is the direction we are heading in.

The Liberal government wants to pass this bill even though no one has any idea of the number of individuals living abroad who would automatically be entitled to Canadian citizenship. There would be some people among those entitled to a Canadian passport who would wonder where Canada is on a map. Does everyone understand how stupid that is? At some point, we need to take back control over immigration.

As we know, there are already huge problems in this country. The last 10 years have been a disaster in terms of the Liberal government's management of immigration. This is particularly true when it comes to asylum seekers because of Justin Trudeau's famous tweet in January 2017, which we all remember. He invited the world to come to Canada. We saw how that turned out. There are currently 600,000 people in Quebec, including 150,000 who have claimed asylum, whose cases have not even been processed or finished being processed. We therefore have a lot of problems to solve in managing immigration in order to restore an immigration system that is fair, honest and efficient for people who want to come to Canada.

Bill C‑3 will give citizenship to people who have no ties to Canada. It makes no sense. It is very difficult to understand. We can imagine a situation where a child or grandchild of a Canadian who moved 50 years ago may have a criminal record in their country, but they would be entitled to a Canadian passport. There is currently nothing in the bill that would prevent criminals, or even terrorists, from being granted Canadian citizenship. That is unacceptable. That is why we strongly oppose it.

In terms of overall immigration to Canada, for years we have been calling on the House to exercise better border control; in fact, I was always the first to do so. I remember being insulted and called racist by former prime minister Trudeau and other ministers because I was raising an issue of public safety and population control. People were coming here because of the infamous tweet. For many years, people took advantage of the situation at Roxham Road. They were not coming here from a country that was being bombed; they were crossing over from the U.S. The government has created a situation where the Canadian immigration system has been unable to manage files properly. Other issues have been created. People have been here for several years because it takes two years to get a first meeting. If they are rejected, they can appeal, and they enter a never-ending system.

Some of these people have children who were born in Canada and who are therefore Canadians. In five, six or seven years' time, however, they might be told that their lives are no longer in danger, that they arrived from the United States, or that they have no ground to claim asylum in Canada and must therefore go back home. This creates other problems, such as having Canadian children, and so on.

We are calling for quick action to take back control of Canadian territory. As I said earlier, 600,000 people are currently living in Quebec on a temporary visa, work permit or study permit, along with asylum seekers. They are having a major impact on Quebec's health care system, education system and housing situation. In fact, the current housing shortage is partly due to groups of people who are here for no acceptable reason. The government is not equipped to process files or ensure that people who set foot on our shores without a valid reason are sent back home. The system is either broken or too slow.

At the same time, there are other immigrants who are settled and working, but who are waiting for their permits to be renewed. They are under an incredible amount of stress. I know this is happening to many of my colleagues, but at my constituency office alone, there are 10 or 15 people coming in every day looking for information. They are waiting for their renewal, unable to speak to anyone. They are not getting notified that the waiting period has been extended. It lands on us, in our constituency offices, to do the work normally done by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada staff. This is not right. The machinery is completely broken.

It is not the civil servants' fault because everything was fine, basically. Prior to 2015, immigration to Canada was running smoothly. There were economic immigrants and refugees coming to the country. Immigration was being managed perfectly. Then the system completely derailed in recent years.

To remedy the situation, we must now also help the officials. They had to deal with a situation that was initially created by Roxham Road. Permits were then handed out by the federal government. Take Quebec, for example. The federal government ignored Quebec's priorities and decided to grant permits to people, supposedly to attend school. It turns out that these people are fake students. What they basically wanted was to come here and then claim asylum so that they could stay. That is compounding the problem.

What is needed are strict, concrete measures with a clear message from the government so that the officials who have to process these cases can do so quickly. When decisions are made, especially about people who have no business in this country, and when they are asked to leave, the decisions need to be carried out. Things cannot be left in limbo forever.

We are therefore urging the government to stop trying to give citizenship to people who have never lived in Canada or who have no connection to the country, and to start dealing with those who have already entered Canada. Those who deserve to be here should be treated well and should be taken care of properly. Those who had no business coming here should go back home. That is how it should work. Canada's immigration system needs to be fixed.

The last thing we need is to pass legislation such as Bill C‑3.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I would like my colleague to tell me if he agrees that the situation I am about to describe should be resolved.

Here we have the case of the child from the Brooke-Bjorkquist family. The child was born in Geneva in 2010 to his parents who were working abroad for the Government of Canada. Despite the fact that the child was born to two Canadian parents and she returned to Canada when she was one, under the current provisions of the legislation, she could not follow the same path as her parents, in other words work abroad, give birth to her child and have that child be a Canadian citizen.

Does my colleague not think it is important to correct that situation?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I got the gist of my colleague's comment.

If Canadian parents who work in Geneva have a child and return to Canada, that child would be Canadian.

The question is, is that child—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The problem arises if her children are born abroad.

[Pierre Paul‑Hus]

Mr. Speaker, if she resided in the country, then yes. There is the notion of stay in the country. The difference with Bill C‑3 is the notion of having lived in the country. This is about a grandchild becoming Canadian even though their parent did not live in Canada.

I could discuss this with the member in private to clarify matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was around at the time we made changes, so I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on how important it is that when a superior court comes out with a ruling, there is a sense of urgency to legislation because of the ruling. Timelines have to be put in place.

What are his thoughts in regard to the whole amendment process for potential legislation? We have heard the Conservatives have concerns and may bring forward amendments. Does the member or the Conservative Party have amendments to date?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that one of the problems that caused deadlines to be pushed back and requests to pile up is that the Liberals wasted the House's time last fall by hiding all the information about the green fund. Furthermore, on January 6, former prime minister Trudeau decided to prorogue Parliament. Because the Liberals had so much trouble managing their own affairs, deadlines have now come and gone.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said and I know that he has been very involved in the Roxham Road file, which has become very problematic for Quebec. He has talked about people who decided to cross the border while there were already hundreds of people waiting in line who had followed all the proper steps to settle in Canada.

After 10 years of laxness and chaos with regard to immigration, does my colleague think it's time to clean things up and take back control over this lost immigration which has practically turned the offices of members from all parties into branches of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, as I said in my speech, there has indeed been a drastic change in how immigration is managed in this country. One of the causes was Roxham Road.

As early as 2017, when I was the official opposition critic for public safety, we asked questions about this while calling on the government to close the border and close the loophole in the safe third country agreement. We were called racist for asking them to do that. Today, it is the various communities across the country that are calling for stricter access to immigration, because it creates problems. This has had a serious impact on communities in terms of health care, schools and housing. There are communities that keep demanding that we get things under control again.

I think the Liberals have started to get it. At the same time, when I look at Bill C‑3, I am not sure they have fully understood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some thoughts on the issue of citizenship.

The issue of citizenship and immigration has played a very important role in my political career. Since I was first elected in 1988, I became interested in the immigration file and in citizenship. They are tied together, the two of them. I have really grown to appreciate what makes Canada great. I believe it is our diversity.

If we take a look at the history of Canada, with the exception of the first nations, Inuit and Métis people, we will find that immigration has enabled Canada to be what it is today. It has been a very powerful source of growth, virtually from day one, and we have seen all forms and different waves of immigrants come to Canada in different ways. Some come for the idea of exploring. Some are individuals looking for economic opportunities to start a new life. There is a wide spectrum. Over the years, we have seen people come from every corner of the planet.

What I would like to emphasize is the degree to which people have a genuine and true appreciation of what it means to be a Canadian. I have, over the years, been to many different citizenship courts. I suspect any member of Parliament or legislature has had the opportunity to witness first-hand the importance of citizenship courts. I have participated in them in many different contexts, whether it has been in schools or health clinics. I particularly love the ones at Via Rail, the train depot, where Manitoba has received many immigrants over the years. There are public facilities like the Manitoba legislature and the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Manitoba's home, and there were many different locations within my own riding, both federally and provincially, when I was an MLA.

It did not matter where it was located. There was a very common thread that could be sewn through every one of those locations, and that was a sense of pride when a citizenship judge gets someone to say the oath, followed by the singing of the national anthem. We can sense that, even from individuals who are citizens. I, for one, will often repeat the oath, as encouraged by citizenship judges.

That can be an extremely touching moment, even for observers, let alone for an individual experiencing it first-hand and being sworn in as a Canadian citizen. That is why I attach so much value to our citizenship. I have seen first-hand hundreds of people being sworn in as Canadian citizens. I have seen the tears in their eyes, the emotions, the hugs and the general wonderful feelings in the recognition that they can now call Canada home as Canadian citizens. The singing of the national anthem, in particular, after being sworn in as Canadians gives a high sense of pride.

The issue of citizenship has been talked about at great length. When I was in opposition, I was fortunate enough to be the critic for immigration and citizenship. Whether it was in committees or in my capacity as a critic outside of Ottawa, I had the experience of being lobbied and had many discussions and debates about immigration and citizenship, what the criteria should be, how to ensure we are not just handing out citizenship and what form security checks should take. There were all sorts of discussions and debates on those issues.

I was not around when Stephen Harper made changes back in 2008. I was in the Manitoba legislature, but not here in Ottawa. Substantial changes were made back then. Those changes caused all sorts of issues that ultimately led to many Canadians being unable to receive their citizenship. We often hear about lost Canadians, and there have been attempts in the past to open up the issue and try to be more inclusive to recognize individuals for their citizenship.

I have had the opportunity to ask questions across the way in regard to the Superior Court of Ontario. Cases were being brought forward to the courts, and the Superior Court found that we needed to change the legislation, the law. The previous law that was put in place by Stephen Harper caused serious issues and denied citizenship for many Canadians. Through that process, we find ourselves here today. It was December 2023 when the Superior Court made the decision, and we have to have this matter resolved by November of this year. That is the extension that has been provided for the House of Commons to ensure that we get the legislation right.

I appreciate that when the minister was here earlier today, she talked about the details of the legislation. She afforded us the opportunity, as we all do, for questions and answers. In listening to the minister, I think one thing that stood out for me personally was her commitment to trying to get this legislation through the House by working with other members of Parliament.

As I said, we have had all sorts of discussions on this issue over the years. We have had standing committees look at it. This bill is very close, although not identical, to previous legislation that we attempted to bring through the House to try to deal with the issue at hand. It is something that does need to be dealt with. The minister made it very clear that if opposition members or government members have ideas or thoughts that would improve the quality of the legislation, she is open to hearing those thoughts and ideas.

Here we are in the dying days of June in this session, and we will come back in September. I want members to realize that the court deadline is in November, and there will be other legislation before the House. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will be building Canada's economy and making our economy the strongest in the G7. Members can anticipate seeing other substantial pieces of legislation come forward.

We know that with the way the House of Commons works, there is a limited amount of time to have debate. Bill C-3 is an important piece of legislation for a lot of people. It has an impact on real lives. I would suggest thousands of lives. We do not know a hard number because we cannot know a hard number at this stage of the game. We might be able to guesstimate, but we cannot have a hard number because we do not know what that number is going to be.

I would encourage members opposite to look at the committee as an opportunity, if members in the chamber really want some specific amendments brought forward. That is why I asked the previous speaker if they had any ideas or amendment to advance. I am not trying to put members on the spot, but we have the legislative agenda of Parliament and a limited number of days for debate. We have to get through second reading, so when is the next time this bill will likely come up again for second reading debate? We are probably talking late September or maybe October. We need to remember that the deadline is November 2025.

If members are genuine in saying they have some changes they would like to see and they promote those changes, I suggest they share those ideas or thoughts with the department or the minister directly. At times, we can work together at building and strengthening legislation. I genuinely believe the Minister of Immigration is absolutely sincere when she says that she wants to have a healthier, stronger piece of legislation. If value can be added to it and we can build consensus, then let us talk about that.

I explained it in the fashion that I did because I want members to realize that the Superior Court of Ontario's extension says the deadline is November of this year. That means that if the bill goes to committee, there will be some potential limitations or that committee is going to be sitting extra amounts of time. If there is an opportunity for opposition members to put forward a couple of amendments or things they believe would build on the legislation, at least then we would have the summer months to look at them, review them and maybe have some consultations or something of that nature, as opposed to waiting until the end of September or the beginning of October, probably at the very earliest the beginning of October, when it would pass through the House and go to the committee stage. I say that for what it is worth.

The substance of the legislation itself tries to deal with an injustice that is not only perceived but very real. In part, I am sensitive to the legislation because I served in the Canadian Forces. Even though I never served overseas, I had many friends who served overseas at the time. I like using the example of the Canadian Forces because I have first-hand experience. What happens is that individuals have families while abroad and have children. If they are Canadian citizens or naturalized, it does not really matter. When they are overseas, they have children, and those children are, no doubt, not going to have any issues in terms of being recognized as Canadian citizens. That is the way it should be.

I believe the world is a whole lot smaller today than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. More and more, there are Canadians throughout the world. I suspect we would find very few major cities in the G20 that would not have some sort of link to Canadians. That provides a great deal of value to all of us. When Canadians—

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I would like to know what time the Adjournment Proceedings will be occurring today.

[The Acting Speaker, Bardish Chagger]

That is not a point of order.

We will go back to the member.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, is that the best he could come up with? I must say I am a little disappointed in the member. We are talking about the importance of citizenship, and he wants to know what time the adjournment is. If he has other procedural questions of that nature, he might want to go to the table, where he will get answers directly, as opposed to being, I would suggest, somewhat rude and interrupting a train of thought that might be taking place.

As I was indicating, the world is a much smaller place. We should be very encouraged by the number of Canadians who live abroad, because we actually benefit from that. The Prime Minister has talked about how Canada is going to be able to grow our economy, respond to Donald Trump's trade tariffs and build Canada as the strongest nation in the G7. I would suggest this is one of the ways we could see it happen.

I will give a tangible example of that. I was in the Philippines back in December, and I had the opportunity to meet with a number of people who have direct links to Canada through citizenship and who do business in the Philippines. At the beginning of my comments, I talked about the diversity of Canada. When we think of the diversity of Canada, it is not just the whole multicultural aspect of our society and how we reflect the globe, but there are different ways we can take advantage of that diversity. One of those ways is through trade.

When someone starts to put limitations in place to the degree the Harper administration did, we put more limits on Canada's potential, our diversity and our ability to be a very strong and healthy country going forward, or even throughout our history.

Many members of Parliament have the opportunity to travel to different countries. Often, when in another country, we meet individuals at stores, trade shows or at conferences who talk about their roots back to Canada. It does not matter whether it is India, the Philippines or many of the other countries throughout the world, why would we not want to be more inclusive?

More importantly, for the sake of argument on this particular piece of legislation, why would we not be listening to the Superior Court of Ontario, which has made it very clear there are issues with the passing down of citizenship? The legislation talks about a sustainable connection. The number of 1,095 is not a number that is just pulled out of the blue sky. It is a very real number being used for permanent residents today. If someone is in Canada for 1,095 days in a five-year period of time, they are eligible to become a Canadian citizen.

At the end of the day, I believe we should at the very least get behind this legislation and see it go to the committee stage because of the November 2025 deadline. Failing that happening, I would really encourage members opposite to come forward and share what amendments or ideas they have. I suspect there might be some good ones there, and we can look at ways we might be able to incorporate them. We do not need to wait until the committee is actually meeting in order to share thoughts and ideas, especially when we have a minister who is so committed to working with members of the House in order for Bill C-3 to pass, ultimately before the deadline, for the benefit of all Canadians and those who—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently for the last few minutes, and the member opposite asked for any suggestions or amendments. One of the things I would like to put forward is that in this legislation, Bill C-3, there is no talk of any background or security checks for any of these people who could be getting clearance and citizenship to come to Canada. I wonder if the Liberals feel that maybe it is a good idea to include that in this bill, going forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the thing I would say to my friend across the way is that if we do nothing, if the legislation does not pass, then we would have the Ontario Superior Court ruling take effect, and we would have individuals then putting in their applications and getting their citizenship without any background checks. As such, there is the idea of getting the legislation into committee and looking at possible amendments. As I say, some might get through, depending on whether they are amendments that would actually give strength to the legislation.

I am going to bring it back to the time issue. The time issue, I think, is of critical importance.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what injustice this bill is remedying. Let me give another example. I will speak slowly so my colleague can give me the right answer.

I would like to talk about the case of Jean-François. His father was born abroad. Jean-François was born abroad when his father was doing his Ph.D. in the United States. Despite the fact that he came to Quebec at the age of three months, grew up and lived his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was unable to get automatic citizenship.

Does Bill C‑3 correct that injustice? If so, under what conditions? If not, why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me give a specific example. With respect to his example, what he might want to do is to share it with the department, and I am sure he will get an answer that would hopefully satisfy him in terms of details on that specific file.

However, specifically, when we take a look at loss of citizenship related to section 8, Patrick was born in 1978 in Kenya. His father was a Canadian citizen who was also born abroad. Patrick was born a Canadian citizen, but did not apply to retain his citizenship before he turned 28, as required by the section 8 retention requirements in place in the legislation at the time, and lost his citizenship in 2006 when he turned 28. Upon the new legislation's coming into force, Patrick's citizenship would be restored, retroactively, to the date of the loss.