Debates of Sept. 15th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who is among the most dedicated parliamentarians I have ever worked with in almost 10 years of serving the people of London Centre.

I would say to the member what I have said throughout my time as an MP looking at legislation. The place to offer amendments and address concerns is not always in the House of Commons, where one can do that through debate and discussion, of course. Committees enjoy a special place in the life of this democracy. If Conservatives, as seems to be the case, are getting ready to obstruct a very important piece of legislation for political reasons, that is not just wrong on substance. There is a place for them to raise issues, not to obstruct there too.

The committee level is where members can put forward amendments, call witnesses and do any number of things. Let us get serious about what we are doing in this place; obstructing important legislation is not being serious.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the first speech that I have had an opportunity to prepare for since the last election, although I did speak spontaneously a little bit, prior to the House adjourning for the summer.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank the voters of Ponoka—Didsbury. This is the seventh time I have been sent to this place. This is the third different constituency and area that I have represented, even though I have a core common area that I have represented for the almost 20 years I have been here. I do want to thank those voters who put their trust in me for the first time, those who have put their trust in me for about 10 years and those who have kept their trust in me for almost 20 years. I will do what I can to continue to earn and keep their trust and will work hard on their behalf.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank some notable campaign volunteers and people who helped me in my campaign. Larry Schmidik is someone who I just met a little while ago. He housed all of our sign equipment at his shop and was very instrumental and helpful. Brenda Steenson is not even from the constituency. She is from Red Deer and was in the constituency prior to the last boundary review. She came out and spent a lot of time on the campaign trail. Of course, I want to thank Angie Stroud, my campaign manager; Alan Marsh, who came out and did all the social media; Ross Moore, who helped with signs, Al Siebring, who came into the office and did a lot of work; Onsy Tawadrous and his daughter Laura, who came out and helped me door knock in Sylvan Lake; Sean Stroud, David Klein and Doug Will, who helped with signs; Mike Muzicka and his partner Lisa, who helped me tremendously in Olds and did the financial books for the campaign; Daniel Schweitzer, Kirby Wollstone, Richard Bone, Lawrence McKelvey, Devin Haltzer, Dalen Kemp, Chris Thiessen, Dustin Kubelka, Wade Collins, Shad Thevenaz, Abigail Schimke, Kevin Bender and Rocky Downton. Those are some of the key people who actually helped make the campaign a tremendous success and led us to a very convincing result in the new constituency of Ponoka—Didsbury, a constituency where I am just getting to know some of the people.

I was just at Old Stoberfest, a unique Bavarian twist to a classic Alberta rodeo. If colleagues ever get a chance to come on up from Calgary to have a look at Old Stoberfest, there is nothing like having cowboy schnitzel and beer to enjoy a rodeo.

However, I do want to talk about this bill that the Liberal government has put forward. I want to talk about the reflections that I have had in meeting with my constituents recently during the election.

Being a Canadian certainly is a birthright for some of us. For some of us, it is the only birthright that we have. For those who want to become Canadian citizens, of course, once they get that right, it comes with a tremendous number of privileges but also a lot of opportunities. Canadian citizenship is a promise. It is also a duty, faithfully kept, of a shared identity and values that holds together millions of people across one of the largest geopolitical land masses on planet Earth. Citizenship is not a handout just to be given away frivolously. It is a covenant where there are rights on one hand and responsibilities on the other. When we cheapen it, we erode the trust that binds our people together and lets strangers call each other neighbours. We are, and should remain, a compassionate and welcoming nation.

Conservatives agree wholeheartedly, but compassion does not mean we dilute and cheapen our standard of what it means to be a citizen of this country. We need to ensure citizenship that is strong, fair and meaningful. Immigration done right and rooted in the merit and respect for the rule of law should be the standard gateway to receive the privilege and the right of being a Canadian citizen. Bill C-3 fails this test and opens the door to abuse that removes strong criteria for ties to Canada. It seeks to devalue what it means to be Canadian.

In 2009, under Prime Minister Harper, Parliament set a principled boundary through the first-generation limit. The principle was reasonable and necessary: end the spread of so-called Canadians of convenience while ensuring fairness for families. The first-generation limit drew a bright line and preserved the idea of citizenship by descent. Conferring a path to citizenship to those born abroad required that they have a parent who was Canadian. This preserves the idea that citizenship and the privileges and rights that come with it are earned.

Bill C-3 removes that balance and replaces it with an extraordinarily weak, substantive connection test, which is 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada at any point in a parent's life with no criminal background check, as a precondition for passing citizenship on to people who may never have set foot once in Canada.

In practice, this bill would allow minimal presence to allow for the claiming of citizenship by people who have never lived under our laws, never contributed to our communities and may never intend to actually do so. It is an abdication of these basic standards.

Conservatives support restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and equal treatment for adopted children. Those targeted fixes are fair and consistent with the dignity of Canadian citizenship, but Bill C-3 would go far beyond these. It would effectively create an unlimited chain migration route without merit, and in doing so would cheapen the value of our national identity and what many have earned by building their life contributing to our country. I am not hearing this just from people who were born in Canada. I am hearing this largely from people who moved here and followed the law and got their citizenship the traditional way.

Why does this matter? It matters because citizenship is the gateway to our most consequential rights: voting for those who govern, accessing social programs and carrying the protection of a Canadian passport. Those rights are paid for in taxes, in service and in the daily investment Canadians make by building their lives, their families and their businesses here in Canada.

Detaching those rights from the duties that I have just outlined would be profoundly unfair. First, it is unfair to immigrants who followed the rules. The people who move here meet strict residency requirements, pass language and knowledge tests, work, pay taxes and then proudly take their oath to citizenship. It would devalue that hard-earned commitment.

Second, it is unfair to Canadians who are already stretched. Health care, pensions and housing are not infinite. They are financed by the people who live and work here. Bill C-3 would be extending full citizenship rights to those who have never lived here, without a serious test of connection and without basic security checks. Canadians see that and they are rightly frustrated.

Under the Liberals, the immigration system has been expanded in ways that outpace Canada's capacity to integrate newcomers, eroding confidence in our system. A responsible approach should work for Canadians and those who wish to become Canadian. Instead, the Liberals are opting for a system that could further strain our public services by a surge of new citizens living abroad who have never contributed to our country. That is not acceptable. Being welcoming cannot mean trading away the inheritance of the value of citizenship that makes Canada a country worth joining.

Bill C-3 says people could get the full rights of citizenship without ever living here, allowing the full bundle of citizenship rights to flow to people without having lived under Canadian law, with no contribution to our common institutions and with no demonstrated intention to build one. Many newcomers come to this country with the intention to work hard, follow the rules, pay taxes and learn our values and norms. Rightly, they are then rewarded for that commitment with citizenship. When we say that people can have that same status without having lived here or contributed, it does not make things more fair. We erase fairness and devalue the effort of those who earned their place the right way. It is a bad policy that unjustly untethers rights from obligations.

There must be significant changes to Bill C-3. For starters, it needs to require a real consecutive presence in Canada, and it must require criminal background checks. We can and should restore citizenship to lost Canadians and ensure equal treatment for adopted children, without detonating the first-generation limit that has safeguarded our system since 2009. The Liberals have claimed that they are open to constructive changes, and we intend to take them at their word. If they truly want a bill that strengthens citizenship, they will back amendments that give real substance to the law, protect security and uphold fairness for those who have put down roots here. There is a path to consensus here if we choose it. Let us keep what is rightly targeted, lost Canadians and adopted children, and stop what is reckless.

For the immigrants who chose Canada and earned citizenship the right way, we are protecting the value of what they have achieved. To those who hope to become Canadians, we welcome their commitment, and we will keep the standards high because we believe they can meet them. To Canadians who worry that the system no longer works for them, it can and must.

The government said it was open to amendments, so it can prove it. It can support a real connection test, basic security screening and targeted fixes without blowing a hole in our national fabric and the foundation of our citizenship.

Business of the House

[Stephanie McLean, Liberal, Secretary of State (Seniors)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that Thursday, September 18, shall be an allotted day.

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

Citizenship Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way might have said this is the first substantive speech he has given since the last election, but he has been around for many years. He knows the importance of a minority versus a majority government. We hear constantly that the Conservatives are not feeling comfortable with the legislation. The member knows that any opposition party can prevent legislation from ultimately going to committee by just continuously talking about it.

Would the member not agree, as many Conservatives across the way have said this, that there are aspects of the legislation that should be dealt with so that people who are not Canadian can be deemed Canadian? We have a superior court ruling on the issue. Would he not agree that many of the discussions and debate can continue at the committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, but it should not take away from the fact that every member in this place has the right and responsibility to speak to important legislation on behalf of their constituents. Not every member has the ability to conduct that same type of cross-examination and debate at the committee stage. It is a subset of the House, so until the House has adequately dealt with this, Conservatives who feel like speaking to this should be given the opportunity.

I wonder if the member is implying that we can expect closure at any minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was born abroad. My dad was in the Canadian military in the 1960s when I was born. There were other children born in the 1950s who were not automatically Canadian, and that caused some problems. There were some important and necessary changes. Conservatives believe in these changes, but we do not believe in a free-for-all.

Former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau declared, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, which makes us the first postnational state. Why is the government actively undermining the value of Canadian citizenship by handing it out to people who do not have any connection to Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are rightly frustrated with the last 10 years of governance by former prime minister Justin Trudeau and now the new Prime Minister. It is the same political party. It is the same people sitting across the aisle from me, who I have seen for the last 10 years, with the same failed approach to dealing with things.

There is nothing the government will not give away to stay in power. It has devalued the value of our dollar. It has completely increased the cost of our national debt and what it means to Canadians. It has ruined virtually all trust in almost all of the institutions we have, including our citizenship process, our national defence and so on, and now, of course, it is going to devalue citizenship.

It is ironic that one of the first things the Liberals changed when they came into power was allowing people who do not live in Canada to vote. That might have something to do with it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome back an old friend, and now I just have to learn how to say Ponoka—Didsbury. It also seems to me that the hon. member has brushed with greatness, within his own caucus perhaps, with the change of the riding name, though I do not think the map changed, as he is right next to Battle River—Crowfoot.

I would like to return to the question of whether this extends new benefits that are not automatically understood by law. As much as the hon. member praised the Conservative Party changes in 2009, does he not think it is a problem that the Court found those changes were not charter compliant?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the real problem lies in the fact that the government, in successive times dealing with serious issues before the nation, has not taken the issues at the provincial court level to the Supreme Court, either for a reference or a ruling. The fact that the government did not bother referring or challenging this ruling and taking it to the Supreme Court so that justices from across Canada would have been able to weigh in on the constitutionality of this is certainly a fundamental problem.

I disagree, I guess, with some of my colleagues around this place. I think Canadian citizenship, and I am married to an immigrant, actually means something to this country. It is valuable, and we should not undermine the value of that citizenship. The Canadian passport means something. Our dollar used to mean something. Our economy used to mean something. Our criminal justice used to mean something. Is there anything left in this country that is going to mean something once these guys are done with it?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be back in this historic chamber to represent the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, a bill that reopens some of the most important questions for any country in any society: Who gets to be a citizen, and what does it mean to be a citizen? There are a few schools of thought. One school of thought we heard from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. When asked about Canadian identity, we were told that Canada has “no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, and in fact, that Canada is the first postnational state. We have seen the current Prime Minister echo this theme as a self-proclaimed “elitist” and “globalist”, and he believes this is “exactly what [Canadians] need.”

In contrast, Conservatives believe Canada has a strong and unique core identity. To be Canadian is to share a genuine connection to Canada, its institutions, its traditions, and most importantly, to share a commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. It holds a belief that rights are balanced with responsibilities and recognizes that citizenship comes with the responsibility to contribute to the community, to respect the laws and to uphold the values that unite us as a nation.

We believe in a Canada where citizenship is earned and respected, where newcomers embrace our shared heritage and contribute to our society, and where every Canadian takes pride in belonging to a diverse country that stands for unity, opportunity, hard work and mutual respect. Canadian citizenship should reflect a genuine connection to our country.

Just like countless members of my community in Vaughan—Woodbridge, and no doubt many members of this chamber, my family understood the privilege of being Canadian when they immigrated to Canada. They understood that it came with commitment. It meant, and should always mean, that we have to wake up in the morning and contribute to the country that gave us a new life and a new home. Bill C-3 casts a shadow over this fundamental need for commitment, specifically with the provision of citizenship by descent.

What is Bill C-3, and why can we not support this bill in its current form? Bill C-3 is the latest attempt by the Liberal government to rewrite Canada's citizenship laws, but this bill is not new. It was originally introduced as Bill C-71 in the last Parliament after the government took over Conservative Senator Martin's bill, Bill S-245, which was a targeted Conservative bill designed to fix a narrow gap in the law that affected a small group of what are known as lost Canadians.

To clarify, lost Canadians are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it, or thought they were entitled to Canadian citizenship and never received it. Notably, many individuals born between 1977 and 1981 remain without citizenship, as the first-generation limit provisions were not retroactively applied. These individuals were often raised in Canada. They attended Canadian schools, work here and started families here. They are Canadian, yet despite their strong ties to the country, they are unable to access health care, obtain passports, vote or exercise the full rights of Canadian citizens.

Bill C-3 also has a provision for adopted children, which we support. Adopted children of Canadian citizens would receive the same treatment as biological children. Conservative MPs supported extending this equal treatment to adopted children born abroad to Canadian citizens during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-245 in committee. Instead of respecting the original intent of that bill, the Liberals, with the support of their NDP partners, expanded it dramatically. What started as a responsible, narrowly focused piece of legislation became a sweeping change of how citizenship is passed down across generations.

The government claims these changes are necessary to respond to a court decision from December 2023, where the Ontario Superior Court ruled against parts of the first-generation limit on citizenship for children born abroad, but instead of appealing that decision or addressing the court's concern with limited rational fixes, the government chose to use it as its reason to open the floodgates.

Under Bill C-3, anyone born outside of Canada to a Canadian citizen could automatically get citizenship as long as that person has spent just 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada at any point in their life. There is no requirement for recent presence in the country, no requirement for the person to have a connection to the country today and no requirement for background checks. I will say that again: There are no criminal background checks. This is ridiculous. At a time when Canada has experienced a 55% increase in crime since the Liberals took office, we must, as parliamentarians, ensure we are doing our due diligence to maintain public safety. In fact, Canadians expect us to do so.

We have seen what has happened over the last 10 years when Liberal governments do not properly consider legislation before it is enacted. Weak soft-on-crime laws have caused a wave of crimes unleashed in places like my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. There are shootings, home invasions, murders and car thefts, all because of an ideological approach to justice and changing bail laws, making it easier for criminals to get out of jail and reoffend. We must be very careful to ensure that background checks and conviction screenings are not overlooked. It is crucial to include this provision and make the necessary changes to this bill.

The government has not even provided a ballpark estimate of how many people would be granted citizenship under this bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that its predecessor bill, Bill C-71, would have created 115,000 new citizens outside Canada in just five years. With no upper limit, the number could multiply for generations. Who will pay for this? Canadians would, through our health care system, our pensions and our already stretched housing market.

I cannot help but be reminded of how the government has broken the immigration system. I heard from countless people in my community of Vaughan—Woodbridge that they cannot afford an immigration system that drives up unemployment. They are tired and frustrated, and citizens want parliamentarians to apply reason and logic when enacting legislation. They want us to ensure that no more unnecessary burdens are placed on our country.

Speaking of burdens, how about the administrative burdens of the bill? IRCC officials could not even guess how many proof-of-citizenship applications would flood an already overburdened system. As immigration lawyer Krisha Dhaliwal put it, “details have not been provided regarding what kinds of evidence will be required to demonstrate the 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada.”

Let me be clear. Conservatives support the restoration of lost Canadians. Conservatives support equal treatment for adopted children. However, this bill goes far beyond that. Why? Why can the Liberal government not just address the issues at hand? Why expand this legislation with an ideological stance on postnational citizenship and include something that would only weaken our country? Bill C-3 would erode the value of Canadian citizenship. It would create a new system that further undermines our national identity by not requiring adequate connection to our country and would add constraint to our already broken system.

Conservatives do not want to throw this bill out. They want to fix it. Here are some things we can do. We can require consecutive physical presence in Canada. We can also require criminal background checks to prevent dangerous individuals from gaining automatic citizenship. Conservatives support targeted fixes, not ideological overreach. We are prepared to work constructively to amend and improve this bill for the good of all Canadians.

Citizenship is not just paperwork; it is a commitment to a country, its values, its people and its future. We should be proud to offer citizenship to those who love and contribute to this country, but we also have a duty to protect the value of what Canadian citizenship means. Conservatives will not support Bill C-3 in its current form, but we are ready to work in good faith to improve it.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, my ancestors came to Canada in the 17th century, and my children were born abroad when I was outside the country serving my country. The United States is where my children were born. We have since returned from the United States and we live here. My children go to school here. They are going to university next year. They will graduate. They plan on spending their lives here.

In the eventuality that one of my children decides to follow in my footsteps and spends some time abroad, can the member please tell me if he believes that my grandchildren should not be Canadian because they would be a threat to the national security of Canada?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's children, who were born abroad but are now here, should in fact already be Canadian citizens, so I am not sure the question applies.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where my colleague left off.

This bill is a direct response to an Ontario Superior Court ruling in a case similar to the example she gave. It involves the child of a Canadian diplomat born abroad, in Switzerland. If the diplomat's child also has a child abroad, that child will lose their citizenship.

This bill has nothing to do with security and criminals. We do need laws for those very important issues, and we need to deal with them. This, however, is about bringing the law into line with a court ruling. What exactly is the problem in the parliamentary secretary's example? I do not understand. That is exactly what Bill C-3 is about.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the bill addresses, there are cases where people are abroad serving the Crown, and there should be allowances made in those instances, but they should not be broad. We should not be opening the floodgates in all cases. We are specifically talking about people who are serving the Crown abroad, and that should be applied to them.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I participated in the debate today, and I am reminded, after listening to a number of my colleagues speak, that in my circumstance, three of my four grandparents were born in the U.K. As a first-generation Canadian, I am not entitled to British citizenship. My grandfather was born in Italy and came to Canada, but he did not become a Canadian until after my mother was born, which would have entitled her to Italian citizenship. I am not.

Italy has changed their citizenship regulations over the last number of years. The trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. I am wondering if my colleague can comment on what he sees as a trend toward postnationalism here and the trend in the other direction in other jurisdictions.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, when it comes to Canadian citizenship, it should really reflect what it means to be a Canadian, to be committed to a country, to live within a country, to contribute to a country and to share the values of a country. It would be unfortunate to see Canada go the way of postnational identity, where citizenship is no longer connected to our country and is, in fact, multiple times removed from people who contribute and actively participate here.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my speech today is not merely about Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It is, like my last speech, about Canadian values, and more particularly the Canadian value that I fear this bill undermines, the value of Canadian citizenship.

I have previously described to this House that my mother came to Canada as a refugee from Yugoslavia. The freedom and opportunity that this country gave her, and by inheritance to me, are of immeasurable value. This value cannot be expressed in dollars and cents. It cannot be expressed in mere words. It can only be expressed in lifetimes.

We express our gratitude for the freedom and opportunity conferred by Canadian citizenship through a lifetime of service to Canada. Every time a Canadian builds a house, plants a tree or coaches hockey, soccer or cricket, they are serving this nation. Anytime a Canadian teacher leads a class or a Canadian nurse changes a dressing in the hospital, they are serving the nation.

When people do their job, pay their taxes, follow our laws, learn our languages, shovel their neighbour's sidewalk and vote in our elections, they are serving the nation. When police officers catch a bad guy, they serve our nation. When a social worker or minister consoles victims, they serve the nation. Most importantly, those who join the armed forces serve the nation, not just in their life but sometimes in their death, and their service is sacred. All of that service, born out of gratitude, builds Canada and builds the value of Canadian citizenship. Canada is strong and free insomuch as Canadians work to make it strong and free.

Canadian citizenship is not a trinket, a bauble or a collector's item to be put on a shelf, kept in its package or sold on eBay at a profit. It is a sacred bond between those who built Canada before us and those who will inherit it after us. If we do well, if we all work our whole lives to make Canada better, perhaps we can pass it on as strong and as free as it was passed on to us, and perhaps our children will enjoy all of the peace and prosperity that we in this House did.

When generations of Canadians build Canada, they build the value of Canadian citizenship. When newcomers come to Canada and follow our laws, pay our taxes, learn our languages and serve the community, they also build the value of Canadian citizenship. That is why I cannot for the life of me understand why, in this bill, the Liberals seek to give away Canadian citizenship to the grandchildren of people who left to go build some other place.

When I went door knocking in Kitchener, Ontario, I met so many wonderful people from all over the world who were so grateful for refugee status or permanent residency. They are working so hard to learn our language, to get an education, to make ends meet in a difficult economy and to pass their citizenship examinations. Many of them have fulfilled all the necessary requirements to become citizens but are still waiting months, even years, to have their applications processed by a broken and backwards immigration bureaucracy.

Why? Why would the Liberals privilege the grandchildren of someone who left to go build another country over the real, flesh-and-blood permanent residents who are in this country now working their hands to the bone to build this country? Do they not see that by letting these individuals abroad jump the queue, they effectively create a hereditary, caste-based, two-tier citizenship regime?

Immediately prior to the election campaign, the Prime Minister declared himself, bizarrely, a globalist elitist. I note that he seems to collect citizenships. He has three. Most Canadians have one. They have put all their eggs in the Canada basket. I could have obtained Serbian citizenship in my twenties. Even now, I believe I can obtain Dutch citizenship by marriage. However, it has never occurred to me that any other nation deserves my service and loyalty, and therefore I have never applied. All of my skin is in this game.

Perhaps the Prime Minister looks at citizenship differently than most Canadians. Perhaps after his years at Brookfield, he seeks to diversify his citizenship portfolio in case his investment in Canada does not quite pay off for him. Perhaps after having received a really cool appointment from the U.K. government, he is holding out for another one if being Prime Minister of Canada does not quite satiate his elitist ambitions.

If the Liberals succeed in passing Bill C-3 in its present form, they will give away citizenship to the grandchildren of those who left, to the children of those who have barely visited and to individuals who do not work here, pay our taxes, follow our laws, serve in our communities and learn our languages. They will give away value. They will invest less and spend more. They will create a deficit of value. Just like their gigantic, undisclosed fiscal deficit, the Liberals inflate away the value of our citizenship after having inflated away the value of our dollar.

Bill C-3 would create a terrible deficit in the public accounts of our citizenship. Canadian citizenship is supposed to confer the opportunity to have a decent job at a good wage so as to buy a nice home in a safe neighbourhood. It is also supposed to confer universal access to proper health care.

How can the government write a blank cheque for all these things to individuals abroad who have never lived here, giving away citizenship when the citizens already here cannot cash their cheques and cannot access these promises? The government's citizenship account is overdrawn. Its cheques are bouncing.

The parliamentary budget office estimated that Bill C-3 would immediately add 115,000 new citizens to Canada who live outside the country. I strongly doubt our immigration bureaucracy can even process all of these. Have the Liberals done any analysis at all to show how adding 115,000 citizens by the stroke of a pen might exacerbate our jobs crisis, our housing crisis and our health care crisis?

The Liberals are giving away tickets for a free boat ride while that boat is taking on water from a hole they have cut in the bottom. Fundamentally, they fail to understand how value is created either in the economic sense or in the citizenship sense.

I would like to make my final comments in French, my third language and Canada's first official language, in order to emphasize my point.

Contrary to Justin Trudeau's claims, Canada is not a postnational state. Canada is and always will be a union between two peoples, the French and the English, defined by its relationships and treaties with first nations. Of course, this union and these relationships have never been perfect. However, this is still a major project, one that is unique in the world, and it continues.

Those of us who, like my family, joined this project along the way come from all over the world. We are like branches grafted onto an old tree. We cannot change this tree the way Mr. Trudeau changes his clothes when he plays dress-up. We grow new leaves to give this tree new energy, and it brings us water from its deep roots. We give it value, and it gives us value in return. To say that Canada is postnational is like saying that a branch can grow without a tree or that a branch can be “post-tree”. I am of the opinion that the tree does indeed exist, that it is alive, and that it serves as our home.

That is why we are against setting up a two-tier citizenship system. If the children of people who have left want to rejoin our nation, let them do it after paying our taxes, obeying our laws and learning our languages. Why is the government introducing a bill without these basic guarantees? Why does it refuse to defend the value of our citizenship?

In its present form, I fear this bill makes cheap what should be sacred. I beg the members in the House to pass amendments to make this a better bill.

We can do this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, Finance; the hon. member for Thornhill, Housing; and the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the member that even Conservative voters want more co-operation taking place on the floor of the House of Commons. At the end of the day, it is a minority government that requires a majority in order to get things through, whether from second reading into committee or ultimately passed into law. If the Conservatives are so confident in their arguments, why not, at the very least, allow the debate to continue at the committee stage and bring forward amendments? If they are sound amendments and the majority supports them, and the majority could just be opposition members, they are going to pass.

Why do Conservative Party members appear to once again want to filibuster legislation?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the honour of my life to present my thoughts in representing the people of Kitchener South—Hespeler in this chamber. I have no interest in obstructing any legislation. It seems to me that the Liberals want the Conservatives to give them a pass on not having done their homework. They had all summer. I understand 200 people work in the Prime Minister's Office. They could have constructed a better piece of legislation.

I am here. I was elected to be here by the people of Kitchener. I am going to tell the House what they have sent me to tell it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for using this bill to share his vision of what Canada is. I see that he recognizes the origins of this country in three nations coming together. However, the Bloc Québécois has been criticizing the concept of a postnational Canada for a long time, first of all because it undermines the Quebec nation's struggle to have our distinctiveness recognized and respected.

If this is my colleague's vision of Canada, does he not believe that the Quebec nation should be part of the Canadian Constitution, in black and white?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think members on this side, back in Stephen Harper's time, indeed recognized Quebec as a nation. I do as well. I think I did in my speech. I thank the member for the consideration in that question.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for an amazing speech. The question I have for him has been talked about today. The government has not put forward any sort of number as far as how many people this bill might affect. The PBO did an estimate, but the government has not been able to make any of those estimates with respect to the number of people, which of course then relates to the costs that are going to be incurred by Canadian taxpayers potentially.

I would be curious to know what the member thinks about that and if he has any estimates or ideas about what this might cost Canadian taxpayers.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can merely go off the PBO report. That 115,000 people seems like quite a bolus to try to accommodate in one day with the stroke of a pen, when the government itself realizes that total immigration numbers have to go down for the sake of our housing system and our health care system. We do not even know what the deficit is in this country. We are starting to suspect that it is massive. Certainly, on the processing, before we even talk about our overwhelmed health care system, I see no way that we have the capacity to accommodate all of this without perhaps causing a sovereign debt crisis. Therefore, I think the Liberals really need to take a second look at what they are doing. It is terribly reckless and irresponsible. The job of the Conservatives on the committee is not to bail them out. It was the Liberals' job to put a better law forward in the first place.