Debates of Sept. 15th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome back my hon. colleague and all those who have returned to the House with the goal of making Canadians' lives better.

The hon. member rightly points out that this bill is about fixing an infringement to the rights of a group of people with a substantial connection to Canada who, through an accident of fate, did not fit certain technical rules that were enacted with good intentions by a previous government. The courts have challenged us to work together to repatriate these lost Canadians while preventing those without a real connection to Canada from treating our country as a passport of convenience.

The world is a volatile and scary place for so many right now, and Canada remains a beacon of relative calm in that storm. Can the hon. member point to any measure in Bill C-3 that would ensure that the lax 1,095 non-consecutive day test would not take us full circle right back to the abuse of Canadian passports that created the need for the—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Niagara South 15 seconds to answer the question.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the provision of 1,095 days is very strange to me. Canadian citizenship is a valuable asset for anybody who wants to be part of this country. I just cannot connect the dots between that number of days and being able to qualify—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-3.

Canadian citizenship is one of the most important things our country has to offer. It is not just a document or a passport; it is a commitment to Canada, its people and its values. It carries not only rights and privileges, but also responsibilities, and that is why citizenship must be defended and upheld. It cannot be treated casually, and it must never be handed out without limits. Bill C-3 undermines that principle. People who may never set foot in Canada, who have not contributed to our society and who have no intention of living here could be granted Canadian citizenship. That would be to destroy what it means to be Canadian.

Canadians understand that our immigration and citizenship systems are already broken. Adding a vast open-ended pool of new applicants without any planning or clear limits would only make things worse. The government has not released how many new citizens Bill C-3 could create. Numbers, costs and the implementation plan are clearly lacking.

This lack of accountability matters. Citizenship must and does mean more than a piece of paper. It represents a real and substantial connection to Canada. That means living here, contributing here and being a part of a united Canadian society.

Conservatives believe in a citizenship system that is fair, is reasonable, is rooted in accountability and puts Canada first. We will not support policies that would so badly skew the meaning of being a Canadian citizen, and we will not put Canadian workers and families at a disadvantage. Conservatives will continue to fight for policies that protect our sovereignty, ensuring that citizenship retains its value and keeps our country strong for generations to come. Canada deserves no less.

Conservatives cannot support this bill. It is an attempt to cheapen citizenship and make it less valuable. Conservatives stand up for integrity, security and responsible immigration.

As many here know, Canada's immigration policy used to be the envy of the world. This bill would potentially radically obscure a common vision of the value of being a Canadian. To hand out Canadian citizenship to people with little or no connection to Canada is insanity.

Regarding its background, Bill C-3 is a re-creation of a previous bad bill with which the Liberal government last attempted to overhaul Canadian citizenship laws. Back in December 2021, 23 applicants from seven families filed a constitutional challenge. The subsequent ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that the first-generation rule in the 2009 Citizenship Act was unconstitutional and gave the federal government six months to respond. Instead of an appeal of that decision, there have now been four extensions. The current requirement is that a response be legislated by November 20 of this year, so the clock is now ticking, and Bill C-3 represents the new version of the Liberals' unpassed Bill C-71 in the last sitting.

Just because the timer is on does not mean that we should pass bad policy. All we need to do is respond to what needs to be fixed. Instead, Bill C-3 would open the door to abuse by dramatically broadening access to citizenship. This would primarily be done by eliminating the requirement for strong ties to Canada. Where Bill C-3 could have maintained a focused and targeted approach like Conservative Senator Martin's Bill S-245 did, this bill, Bill C-3, proposes sweeping changes that would dramatically impact the face of citizenship.

To give a bit of context on this, back in 2009, the Conservative government at the time addressed concerns about Canadians of convenience, that is, Canadians who hold Canadian citizenship who live outside the country and do not participate in Canadian society. Consequently, Bill C-37 amended the Citizenship Act to limit citizenship access down to one generation. In other words, non-resident parents could pass on citizenship to their children, but grandchildren would not automatically be granted citizenship. From this legislation, we became aware of lost Canadians, who are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it or thought that they were entitled to Canadian citizenship but never received it. Senator Martin's Bill S-245 could have addressed these concerns.

Instead, the government is trying to rush through a bad bill when so many other factors need our immediate attention. Not considering factors such as housing, inflation, homebuilding, job security, natural resources, crime and even our drug rate is not being honest to newcomers to Canada.

When people come to Canada, we want to extend the Canadian promise that envisions hard work being rewarded, food and homes being affordable, streets being safe, borders being secure and all people coming together, united under a proud flag, and that is why getting the legislation right is so important. Right now we have the second highest unemployment in the G7, the worst household debt and, in some regions, the highest house prices. To top it all off, our food prices keep going up and up.

Throughout the election, we were promised that we would “build, baby, build”, doubling homebuilding, but instead we are being told homebuilding will fall by 13%. Already in Toronto and the GTA, homebuilding has fallen by half. I know there were announcements made on the weekend by the Liberal government, but as far as I know, announcements so far are not translating into shovels in the ground. Either way, we simply do not have enough homes for Canadians.

In the previous version of the bill, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that 115,000 new Canadian citizens could immediately be added to Canada at a cost of $21 million just for the processing, that being only one estimate. Ryan Tumilty of the National Post wrote that, in fact, the government has no idea how many people would automatically be granted citizenship if the legislation is passed, because there is retroactivity to the current legislation.

I note that this is all happening after we were promised less spending during the election, and from what we know right now, deficit spending looks to be 100% bigger than what we were promised. This is important, because the proposed cost implications of Bill C-3 to Canadians, related to health care, pensions and education, are not even considered a factor. That was discovered in the technical briefing. Canada is already challenged economically.

Again, the election promise was that we would have more investment, but just last week, we discovered that $62 billion of net investment has left the country since the Prime Minister took office. The National Bank says that this is the biggest net outflow in any five-month period in Canadian history.

Unemployment, the cost of living, the cost of homebuilding, tariffs and crime are all up. Worse yet, CIBC says that unemployment matches levels that are typically seen only during recessionary periods, and our youth are the ones who are suffering the most. Over 17% of students are returning to school this fall having failed to secure a summer job. For younger students, aged 15 to 16, unemployment rose to a rate of over 31%.

We have some catching up to do, which is one of the reasons Bill C-3 is just not doable in its current form. Ministers have expressed that they are open to edits and changes, but the bill has massive flaws. There is an old proverb that reads, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.” Conservatives want better legislation. We want legislation that will be passed and that will be successful.

The Liberals are proposing that we streamline multi-generational foreign residents to claim citizenship with minimal presence in the country. We would be extending multi-generational access, generation after generation, when a parent has to spend only 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada, and with no criminal record check. One immigration lawyer asked what kind of evidence would be required to demonstrate one's physical presence in Canada. Citizenship is not about having minimal connection to Canada or joining a club for convenience; citizenship is a commitment to Canada, to its people and its values, and it carries rights and privileges but also carries responsibility.

Finally, it is about people coming from different backgrounds, different languages, and different countries and cultures, all uniting meaningfully with common vision for the country we love.

God keep Canada, the true north, strong and free.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague opposite back to the House of Commons.

There are a lot of things that were said in my colleague's speech that, although I do not want to blame him for misleading, were very misleading to Canadians. Connecting crime, jobs and housing to Bill C-3 is very misleading to Canadians. I think it is important to remember what the bill is about, and the Conservatives have, on multiple occasions, voted for the bill. I have met lost Canadians, some of whom are family members of service members of our country.

Why are we misleading Canadians by making them think that it is a new bill and that it is something that it is not, by connecting crime, housing and all other issues to a bill in which we have made a promise to Canadians who have served our country, that we will bring them back to our country and give them the citizenship that they deserve because they are members of our country?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the bill is about providing citizenship to multi-generational people who have never lived here, who have no intention of living here and who have never been in Canada. Under the bill, to become a Canadian citizen, a person would not be required to have spent a day in Canada. The parents are required to spend 1,095 days in Canada over their lifetime. However, a person could conceivably, in the bill's current form, receive Canadian citizenship without ever having spent a day in Canada, and they could use their Canadian citizenship for travel purposes, for coming here in the event of a medical emergency, for cheaper education or to take advantage of our social system here, because they would be a Canadian citizen.

The bill is seriously flawed, and the member should actually take notice of that.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate him on his speech.

There are cases where the law seems unfair. For example, Canadian citizens who go to a foreign country for work and have a child there have to reapply for citizenship for the child when they return. If that child then leaves the country, they will also have a hard time obtaining citizenship for their child.

Can the member give me a specific, very clear example of a situation where someone would get Canadian citizenship through Bill C‑3 in a way that he deems unfair?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île and for the work he does in Parliament.

The question is very good: Where would Bill C-3 not be fair to someone?

Bill C-3 would extend citizenship to people whose parents have been here only 1,095 days. They themselves may never come here, never want to come here, never contribute to our Canadian society, never be part of our communities and not even necessarily know either of our two official languages, yet they could be full Canadians.

Right now there is a group of people called lost Canadians, who are affected by previous legislation, which the bill also captures, but it could do it with a lot less broadening than in its current state. If the bill is not defeated entirely and something better brought forward, then it needs some significant amendments at committee that would really refine the scope of the bill to include lost Canadians, as is the intent.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that what the deputy government House leader suggested is that the first day back in the House of Commons, after Liberal prorogation, a leadership race and an election, is that somehow we should not be debating a bill on immigration, after the Liberals have broken Canada's immigration system. We know that the Liberals have increased immigration levels to an extent while the economy has shrunk. Immigration levels cannot keep up with housing supply, with jobs and with health care. There have been reports and news articles to the contrary. I think it is really important to set the record straight.

Of course Parliament should be looking at any bill that the government is proposing with regard to immigration, and so my question to my colleague is this: There are amendments that the bill needs with regard to language proficiency, the length of time somebody has to be in Canada and likely other things, like criminal record checks. Does my colleague think that the Liberals will work collaboratively and pass those amendments?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for all the tremendous work she has done in Parliament over the years, especially on the piece of legislation before us. She has really shown her expertise in this area and on this file.

The member is absolutely right; our immigration system has been severely broken by the Liberals. They are not taking into consideration the reality we live in Canada and that many things are broken that need to be fixed. Our eyes should be on that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be back after our summer in our ridings. I know that all of us worked really hard seeing our constituents.

Throughout the summer, on top of meeting with constituents at the office and across the riding, I attended multiple fairs, festivals, parades and rodeos every weekend. It was just great to get out there and to see as many people as we did. I spent the last two weeks before coming back here meeting with municipal councils across our large riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, and meeting with farmers. We talked about the challenges we have right now in the riding. I can tell my colleagues that a lot of things came up.

In coming back here, I am glad to see that one of our priorities as Conservatives will be to deal with the cost of living crisis that has been created by the Liberal government. We are going to deal with the jobless crisis that is particularly hitting youth, including in our riding, and deal with the crime crisis that continues to terrorize our communities right now because of the catch-and-release policy of both the previous Liberal government and the current government. It is the number one issue I am hearing about.

Of course, there are a lot of concerns about how immigration has been left to go without any strategy and plan to actually support Canada and our economy. As well, we need to plan ahead in how we deal with housing, education, health care and other social infrastructure we need in order to deal with the burdening cost of having a population that has boomed over the last 10 years because of unbridled immigration.

We are going to propose solutions for that as Conservatives. We are going to make sure that everybody can have a stronger paycheque so they can afford the higher costs. However, we want to look at how we can cut back on inflation and create more jobs.

We want to make sure our streets are safe. There is going to be a lot of legislation proposed by our Conservative Party that would make our communities and our streets safer and keep the criminals behind bars.

We are going to want to make sure that we secure our borders as well, by hitting the brakes on immigration and on anything that is suppressing local jobs and creating high youth unemployment, such as the temporary foreign worker program.

I am looking forward to when we table our Canadian sovereignty bill here in the House. It would open up Canada for business. It would create a pile of jobs, cut government taxes and improve the approval times of all major nation-building projects, not through creating bureaucracy but by cutting the red tape, regulations and bad legislation that came in under the Liberal government.

I am here to speak to Bill C-3. There is a reason why the government is doing this. There was a court decision that was made.

I was in the Harper government in 2009, when we had to deal with a crisis because of Canadians of convenience. We created the first-generation limit on citizenship to ensure that Canadians who claim citizenship have a direct connection to the country, and that they value that citizenship and plan to utilize it in a responsible manner. If somebody was born in Canada, went abroad and had a child, that child would still be a Canadian under the current legislation, under the first-generation limit, but the grandchildren would not be, without any direct connection. We are saying that Canadians have to have a direct tie, value Canadian citizenship and use it responsibly.

The Ontario Superior Court ruled it was unconstitutional and asked the government to put in place a way to fix it by June 2024. Here we are with a new deadline. It has been extended about four times by the government because it has not been able to get it done. The bill before us would have to pass by November 20, but there are things in the bill that we have to change.

There are things in the bill that we are very supportive of. We are supportive of the changes in the adoption section about children who are adopted from abroad. As soon as they are adopted, they would be considered to be Canadians, and their parents would be able to bring them home and start raising them.

I have heard heartbreaking stories in my riding over the years from constituents who have actually gone to adopt children from other countries. It took years to get them back into Canada because Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada put up roadblock after roadblock. This process would take away all the red tape and bureaucracy, allowing those children who are legally adopted abroad to come to Canada immediately with their parents and start their lives here. I applaud the government for doing this. It is something that Conservatives really support.

Also, I support the proposed section in Bill C-3 with regard to lost Canadians. The issue of lost Canadians has to be rectified. A lot of people who were born here from 1977 to 1981, over roughly 50 months, had Commonwealth citizenship but could no longer claim Canadian citizenship. That happened in my riding as well. Constituents have come to my office saying they do not have citizenship, they cannot get a passport, they cannot get access to health care and they do not have the ability to travel or vote. The inherent rights of citizenship have been taken away from individuals who have lived, worked and paid taxes here their entire lives. Yes, Conservatives support this proposed section of the bill and want to see it passed quickly. Twenty thousand Canadians potentially fall under the lost Canadians mandate.

The problem we are dealing with is trying to address the issue of Canadians of convenience, which we have witnessed going back to 2006 and which we tried to rectify in 2009. The courts claimed it was unconstitutional, and now the government is coming forward with a very weak substantive connection test for people who want to inherit Canadian citizenship. To claim Canadian citizenship, people have to stay in Canada for only 1,095 days, or roughly three years. If someone is born to those who have Canadian citizenship, that person can claim it; then their children will automatically get to claim citizenship as well, although they may have never lived in Canada. This creates a problem with multi-generational Canadians who have never lived in Canada and never, ever called it home.

I will give an example. About 20% of Canadians living abroad live in the United States. They move there because they want to pay lower taxes; they do not like the situation in Canada. It has been happening for generations. They move to the United States, they work in the United States and they take on U.S. citizenship, but they maintain their Canadian citizenship. If their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren come back to Canada every year to holiday in my riding, along beautiful Lake Winnipeg or Lake Manitoba, because they have a cottage there, their children can stay there for three weeks of the year. Since this is not consecutive and can be spread out over time, at the age of 52, they can come back and claim citizenship. Then, if they have substantive health challenges going forward, they will get access to our health care system without ever paying a dime of tax or anything to Canada.

As well, once they hit age 65, they can move back to Canada without ever paying any taxes up to that point in time and start participating in GIS and OAS, our old age pension system. Twenty per cent of Canadians living abroad are in the United States, and this will also apply to them along with anyone else. This could potentially include tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who want to claim this right of citizenship, because of this erroneous proposed section in Bill C-3.

This would create two new major administrative burdens on the Government of Canada that it will have to deal with, including new proof of citizenship applications for issuing passports and a new process for the substantive connection test that has to happen. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that in the first five years, it is going to cost at least $21 million. We know it would also undermine the value of Canadian citizenship.

Conservatives believe in strong, fair and meaningful Canadian citizenship that we can all be proud of. We talk about a two-tier system. Those of us who are born here get to enjoy the benefits, and then there are those who claim Canadian citizenship by working here, living here, connecting here and raising their families here. Now we are going to make it easy for others to come who have no connection to this country in any way, shape or form. Let us stop the two-tier immigration system that Bill C-3 would start and support the amendments that the Conservatives are bringing forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like the member to listen to a hypothetical situation that is a possible reflection of reality. There are many Canadians, generations of Canadians, who move to another country, and after living in that country for 50 years, 60 years or maybe even much longer than that, come back to Canada.

Applying the same principle, would the member say to those individuals that they should not be entitled to OAS, GIS or Canadian health services? Would he apply that very same principle?

The bottom line, I believe, is that there are some concerns. Let us bring the bill to committee, as opposed to filibustering the legislation, and listen to what even Conservative voters are saying, which is that they want to see more co-operation among all parties in the House. Would the member not agree?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, if this is a filibuster, why is the member for Winnipeg North up talking? He always gets up in debate. This is actually my first chance to talk on Bill C-3, and we just got back. Let us try to work across the aisle here and see if we can make some headway.

I want to read some quotes about Canadians living abroad.

Sergio Karas, who is principal of Karas Immigration Law Professional Corporation, stated:

...many Canadians born abroad live in low-tax countries and regard Canada as an insurance policy if trouble ensues, but have no intention to pay exorbitant Canadian taxes.... Introducing tens of thousands of new citizens without a robust integration plan is reckless. Our social infrastructure is buckling, and health care is under severe pressure. The lack of a clear strategy for accommodating this potential population surge only heightens concerns.

We have to address those concerns first, before we open up citizenship to everybody around the world.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am listening to the Conservatives and wondering if I did the right thing in coming to Ottawa today. Will I make it home safe at the end of the week? Luckily, Bill C‑3 has not passed yet.

I would like to ask my colleague how many potential terrorists are there among the Canadian women who married non-Canadians before 1947 or among the people born between February 15, 1977 and April 16, 1981 and who, at the age of 28, forgot to reapply for Canadian citizenship.

What is my colleague afraid of? What is this major loophole that is being created and that I cannot see that will apparently serve as a gateway for terrorists who were children born abroad, adopted by a now-deceased parent and excluded from obtaining their citizenship?

Those people already followed the process so Canada could ensure it was okay to let them in. Essentially the bill covers individuals whose past we already known and have vetted. Should I still be worried? I would like my colleague to answer that question.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we know what that number is at this point in time. However, we do know that with Bill C-3, people could qualify for Canadian citizenship without ever going through a criminal record background check or without anyone ever looking at whether they appear on anything such as a terrorist list. Under the legislation, they could be two or three generations removed from being a Canadian, and using their citizenship, they could claim the right to return, even if they were on a terrorist watch-list. That has to be changed, and I cannot support Bill C-3 in its present form.

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to comment on what the member for Winnipeg North said. I am looking at the clock, and it is one o'clock. Parliament has been sitting for two hours, and this is maybe the 20th or 21st day in 2025 that Parliament is sitting.

We are trying to have a serious conversation about an important immigration issue, and the parliamentary secretary, who is the only Liberal to have spoken at all today as far as I have seen, says that two hours of debate is too much and that he has had enough. If he has had enough, maybe he can go do something else and let others participate in the conversation.

In the meantime, I would say that this is literally our job: to discuss important issues before the House. If the parliamentary secretary does not want to do the job anymore, that is up to him, but we need to actually talk about major public issues facing the country. That is our job. It is the purpose of the people's House.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree completely with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Again, here we have the member for Winnipeg North, who has been here forever—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate this proposed legislation for the first time in the House of Commons. What makes this debate even more special to me is that it is about citizenship. Like many of us in this House, I am a citizen of Canada who did not acquire Canadian citizenship by virtue of birth; I gained it later in life, when I was almost 20.

Gaining Canadian citizenship is like winning the lottery, and even though I do not recognize our country after 10 years of the Liberals, I still believe that Canada is the best country in the world. Holding Canadian citizenship is a remarkable privilege that should not be afforded loosely to anyone who was not born in Canada.

The bill would confer Canadian citizenship on children of Canadian citizens who were not born in Canada. These are not children born to Canadian-born Canadians living abroad, which is already law, but children whose parents are Canadian but were not born in Canada, and their children and their children's children, in perpetuity, if they meet the substantial connection test. If a Canadian not born in Canada demonstrates that they were present in Canada for only three years in total, not consecutively, their non-Canadian children would also be eligible for Canadian citizenship. My fear is that Bill C-3 seeks to diminish and devalue the value of Canadian citizenship. It is an irresponsible position.

Last week, along with my family, I celebrated our 30th “Canada-versary”, 30 years of blissful existence in Canada. That is why I have a unique perspective on this piece of legislation, as it touches directly on one of the greatest things in the world, one of the most precious documents one could ever imagine: a Canadian passport reflecting Canadian citizenship. My story is not unique; it has been experienced by many Canadians and many members of the House. Is it the story of coming to Canada.

Thirty years ago, Canada was in need of chemical engineers. My father was a chemical engineer. We applied, passed a medical check and passed a criminal background check, and within a short time, we were invited to immigrate to Canada as landed immigrants. The system worked.

I remember the night we came to Canada. It was on September 5, 1995, in the middle of the night. We landed at Pearson airport in Toronto and drove to North York, to Sheppard and Bathurst, inside the heart of the riding I am now blessed to represent in this House. I looked out the window and I saw Earl Bales Park and the Don Lands, and on the other side of the park was Yonge Street, with beautiful lights and towers, in the great riding of Willowdale. I was in love from day one.

We did not have a cent to our name. I remember what true poverty was like. My dad initially sold ice cream off those yellow dixie bicycles. My mom was an unemployed teacher, but it did not matter because I always had a job and always had incredible joy. All we ever needed in order to succeed in Canada was to work hard and be nice to people. That was it. That was the Canadian promise, which my fellow Conservatives and our party leader seek to restore. Since then, I have had every blessing this country has to offer to study, work, succeed, practice law and start a small business, and eventually to be elected to this House to represent the very constituents who welcomed me as an immigrant.

I also remember the day we became Canadian citizens. It was on March 16, 2000. We went to a federal building at St. Clair and Yonge. I remember taking the oath of citizenship with my new fellow Canadians. It was a beautiful thing. It is very sad that the requirement to attend in person to take the oath has recently been diluted by the Liberals. It is shameful.

I remember the judge, who smiled at me. I remember her smiling at me as we were leaving the room after my oath. It was so important to me to speak about this bill because I do not want to see this value diminished.

Canadian citizenship gave rise to future generations of Canadians who helped build this country, who pay taxes and participate in civil society and national conversations, new Canadians who represent Canadians. Many of my friends in the House are new Canadians who represent Canadians in their respective constituencies.

This is why I and my colleagues oppose what Bill C-3 would accomplish, in essence, which is to devalue Canadian citizenship. We already had Justin Trudeau devalue the Canadian passport, eliminating images of Terry Fox in favour of a picture of himself, presumably at Harrington Lake. We would not expect that kind of behaviour from a leader of a democratic country.

Now, the current Prime Minister seeks to devalue our citizenship by offering it in perpetuity to children not born in Canada. The Liberals propose that all one would need to do is spend three years in Canada on and off, which could be a year, could be over a decade or could be dozens of summer vacations, and that would be enough to establish a substantial connection, to pass on our precious Canadian citizenship.

Someone could even have a criminal record and still be eligible for Canadian citizenship as long as one of their parents spent three years in Canada, on and off; this is with no residence, no property, no Canadian employment, no Canadian education, nothing.

I submit, respectfully, that to qualify for Canadian citizenship, one must establish roots in Canada, contribute to our society, get a job, go to school, buy property, at the very least, instead of a short-term stay on and off.

Also, we already have enough crime and chaos on our streets because of Liberal bail and sentencing policies. We rightfully insist that anyone with a criminal record should not be admitted to Canadian citizenship. Canadians and future generations of Canadians will thank us.

I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to rise in the House to debate this very, very personal piece of legislation. I invite all of us to remember why we stood for office and why we got elected. We got elected for Canadians. We got elected to defend our country and to preserve its culture, its security, its safety, its well-being, its economic well-being.

What this legislation would do is undermine all of that. We look forward to reviewing it at committee, and we hope that our friends across the aisle will sincerely consider some serious amendments to beef up the substantial connection test. Future generations of Canadians will thank us.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I am glad that he came to Canada and exercised his Canadian citizenship rights. However, I think it is very important that we avoid creating a bogeyman or criticizing something that is not true.

I am going to share a little story. I am hoping my colleague can give me some advice about one of my constituents, born to Canadian development workers in Africa. He was born outside Canada and wanted to work internationally, which he did in several countries. At one point, he moved to the United States and married an American woman. Now that his parents are ill, he has returned to Canada to take care of them. Unfortunately, the problem is that his children cannot obtain Canadian citizenship. However, his children are not a threat to the national security of Canadians; they are four and six years old.

I would like to know why the hon. member believes that this issue should not be resolved for people who want to contribute to Canadian society.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we absolutely feel that there is room to look. For those who were born to parents outside of Canada, to parents who are Canadian citizens but who were not born in Canada, we should certainly look at ways to let them become Canadian. The disagreement on this side of the House is with the substantial connection test and with the de minimis requirements that Bill C-3 prescribes.

What I hear from my friend opposite is that the non-Canadian is now living in Canada, that his parents are living in Canada and that he is here, in fact, to help them, which is very commendable, but it sounds to me as if that particular resident has some roots in Canada, which is all we are asking for.

Devise a framework where non-Canadians can become Canadians not by virtue of doing the minimum and showing up for a couple of summer vacations but by living in Canada—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from York Centre for his heartfelt remarks and for sharing his story. I appreciated hearing him talk about how proud he felt during his immigration process, but I was surprised that he expressed concern about people from other countries coming to Canada on a path similar to his own.

As a lawmaker, I want to understand what the Conservatives are opposed to and, more importantly, how they want to close the loophole that could lead to so many problems. They have been talking about citizenship in perpetuity and the substantial connection test. I am trying to understand. What amendment will the Conservatives suggest to the committee to close this loophole?

We all know the Bloc Québécois will have the balance of power in committee, so we certainly need a good understanding of their amendment if we are to fix the bill they claim is so catastrophic.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I reject the proposition that I, in any way, am not in favour of other non-Canadian residents obtaining Canadian citizenship. In fact, I specifically said that new Canadians contribute to our country, pay taxes, work, go to school, contribute to our culture and heritage and even get elected. I would like to preserve that privilege for future generations of Canadians instead of diluting the right to become Canadian, as the legislation seeks to do.

Conservatives would offer various options at committee. We would look at asking the government to amend the act to provide for additional years. We would ask the government to provide for some consecutive terms, something that would enable the establishment of roots in the country, instead of coming and going, as the Liberals propose.