Bill C-71 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s adoption;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and
(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.

Citizenship Act

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today, we debate a very familiar piece of legislation to the House that has been brought back from previous parliaments. Bill C-3 may be newly introduced, but the substance of the bill is more of the same. It is the same broken car that the Liberals tried to drive through the House last year with a different coat of paint.

Let us be clear that it was originally Conservative legislation from the Senate. Bill S-245 was a private member's bill containing provisions to address lost Canadians. The Conservatives were supportive of the original substance of that bill, but thanks to the Liberal government, the bill was significantly amended, and it eventually stalled at report stage. In May 2024, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-71, which drastically went beyond the original scope of Bill S-245. Therefore, we started with Bill S-245, then we had Bill C-71 and now we are dealing with Bill C-3.

Bill C-3 has three separate pieces of information that must be understood individually. The first part is citizenship by descent. We may not agree on everything in this House, but I believe we can all agree that becoming a Canadian citizen is a privilege. However, as written, Bill C-3 undermines Canadian citizenship. In fact, Canada has important safeguards in place that protect our citizenship, like the first-generation limit.

I want to stress that we have policy like this for a reason. As my colleagues have mentioned, at the height of the 2006 conflict, Lebanese Canadians living in Lebanon looked to the Canadian government for help, and Canada answered the call, spending $94 million to successfully evacuate 15,000 Canadians to safety. Despite living in Lebanon full time prior to the conflict and having little connection to Canada, they still benefited from their Canadian citizenship and became known as Canadians of convenience. Following a ceasefire in the conflict, many Lebanese Canadians immediately returned to Lebanon. This was a wake-up call for Canada, and in 2009, the previous Conservative government responded with implementing the first-generation limit. This reasonable measure set out that only the first generation of children born abroad to Canadian citizens could automatically obtain citizenship.

Members may be shocked to learn that this safeguard for Canadian citizenship against Canadians of convenience would be eliminated by Liberal Bill C-3, as written. The Liberals seek to replace this safeguard to obtaining citizenship by descent with something called a substantial connection requirement. This extremely weak requirement simply means that parents must prove they spent 1,095 non-consecutive days physically in Canada before the birth of their child. This legislation would not even require a criminal record check.

The Liberals believe that parents spending a few weeks or months spread out over decades is enough of a substantial connection to automatically extend citizenship to multiple generations of people born outside of Canada. We still do not understand what evidence would be required as proof that parents spent just over 1,000 days in Canada at any point in their life. Through Bill C-3, the Liberal government could be opening Canadian citizenship to people with criminal records or to individuals who may not even realize they could claim Canadian citizenship in the first place.

When the previous version of this legislation was studied, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that as many as 115,000 new citizens outside of Canada could be created. According to the National Post, “The government has no idea how many people will be automatically granted citizenship if the legislation is passed.” Why would the Liberal government create a new system with a potentially limitless chain of migration? This is deeply concerning, but after 10 years of the Liberals destroying our immigration system, we cannot be surprised.

The second part of Bill C-3, which the Conservatives do support, is the adopted children provision. Right now, provisions in the Citizenship Act state that when a Canadian citizen adopts a person born outside of Canada, the parent would need to start a lengthy process of applying for a child's permanent residence. Instead, this bill would remove an unnecessary burden on adoptive parents and treat an adopted person as if they were born here in Canada, automatically granting Canadian citizenship to the child. This is a simple and reasonable approach to achieving equal treatment for adopted children, and the Conservatives support it.

Third, we come to the restoration of citizenship to lost Canadians. As a result of compounding legislation and amendments to section 8 of the Citizenship Act, a group of people born to Canadian parents between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, had to apply to reinstate their citizenship before turning 28 years old. Those who did not apply to reinstate their citizenship lost it, despite being raised in Canada, going to school here and starting their families here. The Conservatives support the provisions in Bill C-3 to correct this error.

Canadians are paying the price for the Liberals' out-of-control immigration policies. Let me be clear. Immigration is important to our country, but the government must have control over it. Right now, the Liberals have zero control over their immigration policy. Effective immigration policy should be tied to outcomes, and it should consider the supply of housing, health care and jobs. This is important not only for Canadians who are trying to buy a house, find a job and get a family doctor; it is equally important for newcomers. It is wrong to set immigrants up for failure in a country that does not have the capacity to support them. Unfortunately, the Liberals have lost complete control over immigration.

Let us examine health care, for example. Last year, the Liberals brought in nearly a half a million permanent immigrants. Meanwhile, 6.5 million Canadians do not have a family doctor. The Liberals see no problem adding hundreds of thousands of new patients to a health care system that is already overburdened. Emergency room closures are occurring on a regular basis while health care workers are burnt out from working millions of hours of overtime. Canada is currently short at least 23,000 family doctors and 60,000 registered nurses, with these numbers set to dramatically increase in the next few years. Someone does not need an economics degree to understand that the increasing demand on our health care system through unfocused immigration while the supply of capacity is collapsing is a recipe for disaster. I guarantee that our health care system is only going to get worse under the Liberal government's failed immigration policy.

The Liberals are not just driving up demand through their failed immigration policy; they have failed to build capacity too. While the government adds record demand to our health care system, it is restricting the supply of qualified health care professionals from working. According to the health minister's own department, of the 200,000 internationally trained health professionals employed in Canada, 80,000 are not working in their field. Eighty thousand internationally trained health care professionals who immigrated to Canada thinking there was a place for them to contribute to our overwhelmed health care system are being blocked from working.

I met a vascular surgeon from Brazil who has years of training and experience yet sees no path to practising in Canada. The Liberals bring doctors and nurses to Canada for their expertise but block them from working in their profession. I was in Toronto, where I met a doctor from Argentina with many years of experience. She came to Canada hoping to use her skills and experience to provide care for our people. Today, she works at Home Depot because gatekeepers and licensing bodies block her from getting certified to practise.

For 10 years, the Liberals have turned immigration into a numbers game while ignoring capacity, ignoring the needs of Canadians and ignoring the very newcomers they claim to welcome. Blocking doctors and nurses from working while adding millions of new patients to a broken health care system is insane. We cannot fix our broken health care system without fixing our broken immigration system first. The Conservatives are committing to fixing that problem. We should only invite the right people in the right numbers so that our health care system can catch up. At the same time, we must implement a national blue seal professional testing standard to ensure that foreign-trained health care workers can work in Canada. We must enable health care workers to take their skills wherever they are needed across our country.

The Conservatives know that the parts of Bill C-3 have potential, but we cannot support rushed Liberal legislation that is so poorly thought out. The Conservatives will make recommendations to improve this legislation and implement real safeguards to strengthen the citizenship we are so blessed to have.

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

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Bill C-3 responds to a court ruling. I will provide a bit of background. In 2009, the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to prohibit passing on citizenship beyond the second generation. On December 19, 2023, the Superior Court of Ontario struck down certain provisions of the Citizenship Act, ruling that they violated the section on mobility rights, which states: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”. The provisions also violated a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard to equality before and under the law and the equal protection and benefit of the law.

The parties challenging the Citizenship Act represented seven families that had been discriminated against by the legislation. The court recognized that the ban introduced in the act was unfair, particularly for women who had to choose between the birthplace of their child and the ability to pass on citizenship. Take the case of the Brooke-Bjorkquist family's child. That child was born in Geneva in 2010 to Mr. Brooke and Ms. Bjorkquist, who were working for the government abroad. Despite the fact that the child was born to two Canadian parents and returned to Canada at age one, the child could not, under the current provisions of the act, follow in their parents' footsteps by working abroad and having a child abroad, because they would not be able to pass on citizenship to their child. That is the problem that was raised in court. This is an absurd situation because the birth of that child in Switzerland is a circumstance due to their parents' work abroad in service of Canada, and practically their entire life has been and should continue to be spent in Canada.

Bill C-3 is an identical copy of Bill C-71 from the 44th Parliament, which did not pass. It is also similar to Bill S-245. In 2023, the court gave the government six months to pass legislation to fix the problems. Despite the deadline having passed, here we go again.

I would like to briefly review certain aspects of the history of Canadian citizenship. It is a relatively recent development in the country's history. When Confederation came about in 1867, Canadians were British subjects. It was not until the first Immigration Act was passed in 1910 that citizenship was first mentioned. It defined Canadians as persons born in Canada, British subjects living in Canada, or immigrants naturalized as Canadians. The objective was to facilitate their passage across borders.

In 1921, the Canadian Nationals Act was passed, defining Canadian nationality for immigration purposes for the first time, but without establishing Canadian nationality status. Other laws were also passed, such as the naturalization acts of 1906 and 1914 that sought to govern naturalization, as their names suggest. It was not until Mackenzie King, who became the first Canadian citizen, introduced the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1947, that Canadian citizenship was finally defined for the first time and granted to women as a matter of right.

However, the 1947 act was not perfect. At the time, citizenship was not considered a guaranteed right, but a discretionary power of Parliament. Many situations, particularly those involving naturalization and citizenship by descent, were covered incompletely or not at all. For example, under this regime, when the responsible parent took the citizenship of another country, their children lost their Canadian citizenship. Other obscure provisions, such as the requirement for Canadian children born abroad to reside in Canada during their 24th year, resulted in many individuals living in Canada not officially having citizenship.

The act was next modernized in 1977, and this iteration attempted to simplify the previous citizenship regime. However, the regime remains unfair for several groups, particularly children born abroad. For example, under the 1977 Citizenship Act, individuals who obtained citizenship by descent had to reiterate their desire to retain their citizenship before the age of 28 or risk having it revoked. Because of this little-known requirement, many individuals living in Canada lost their citizenship without even knowing it.

The government failed to communicate this requirement to its citizens, and it was only when the affected individuals had to prove they were citizens, to apply for a passport, for example, that they discovered that they no longer had Canadian citizenship. Some people had been living in Canada for generations. Their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on had been living in Canada, yet they found themselves stateless. These people continue to experience problems, and Bill C-3 aims to fix some of these issues.

These individuals who lost their citizenship as a result of certain obscure, unfair or discriminatory rules are known as lost Canadians. It is a diverse group, consisting of military spouses, children, soldiers, second-generation children born abroad, children of immigrants, border babies, orphans, indigenous Canadians and Chinese Canadians, to name but a few.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration establishes four categories of lost Canadians. The first is war brides, meaning women who married Canadian soldiers fighting for Canada in World War II and who immigrated to Canada during or after the war to join their Canadian husbands. The second is people who were born abroad to a Canadian parent before the current Citizenship Act came into force in February 1977. The third is people who lost their citizenship between January 1947 and February 1977 because they or a parent acquired the citizenship and nationality of another country. Lastly, there are second- and subsequent-generation Canadians born abroad since the current Citizenship Act came into force in February 1977.

Their plight was brought to the public's attention thanks to Don Chapman, a former United Airlines pilot who found out that he had been stripped of his citizenship when his father emigrated to the United States. By deftly showing that this problem was affecting many Canadians unbeknownst to them, he forced Parliament's hand. Even General Roméo Dallaire was affected by the problem. To address it, Canada adopted a series of legislative reforms in 2005, 2009 and 2015.

Errors and inconsistencies persisted, however, and Bill C-3 seeks to correct them. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill before us. There will be some very important discussions in committee and amendments will be proposed to improve the bill and allay the fears and uncertainty that have been raised in the speeches in the House. For the Bloc Québécois, these are technical adjustments being made in the interest of justice that seek to harmonize the application of laws and to correct injustices committed in the past. To us, it is a matter of principle.

This bill, which I believe is technical in nature and responds to a court ruling, should, in our opinion, have been passed within six months of the ruling. When it comes to citizenship, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in particular, there are still a number of ongoing problems and irregularities that need to be addressed. I cannot describe in parliamentary language how this department functions. It should be thoroughly reviewed and improved.

In each of our constituency offices, we receive numerous calls, emails and requests almost every day from people asking us to speed up the process, deal with lost documents and provide assistance. In most cases, these are heart-wrenching stories. These are people who are living in uncertainty and facing challenges. Our immigration and citizenship legislation needs to be completely overhauled to simplify and clarify the process. The department needs to speed up the process, because in most cases, it is inhumane.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House as the member entrusted to represent the good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies in beautiful British Columbia.

It is important for all members to bear in mind that we, as members of the House, have a duty because our fellow Canadians, the constituents we represent, trusted us to be their voice in this place. Canadians look to us, to Parliament, to deliver good work and solutions. There is no shortage of crises facing Canadians today. We must be seized with our collective duty to deliver timely and efficient legislation to move our nation away from the crises we face. Let us never forget why we are here in this place; we are here to represent the good people who elected us.

It is good to be back in the chamber after a summer of meetings and conversations with the good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. There were many conversations about the issues that are important to the people at home, and I look forward to voicing their concerns here. Constituents shared their concerns with me, concerns about the increasing cost of living, housing shortages, rising joblessness and crime on our streets. These conversations and discussions are valuable to me as an elected representative, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my sentiment, because we as legislators have a duty to address these issues and make good laws for all Canadians.

Today we are debating government Bill C-3, which seeks to amend the Citizenship Act. It goes without saying that Canadian citizenship is valuable. For citizens, Canadian citizenship bestows the fundamental rights of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights that preceded it.

The Government of Canada carries significant responsibilities for its citizens. Whether or not the government of the day is fulfilling its responsibilities is an essential and big question. However, we are here now to examine Bill C-3, not the ongoing failures of the government. That said, the value of citizenship may be directly devalued by governments that fail to deliver sound policy and actions that uphold the fundamental rights of citizens and deliver core functions of the federal government. These are not small responsibilities; to the contrary, they are profound, which is why any legislation dealing with Canadian citizenship must strike the precise balance.

The bill before us today, Bill C-3, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, with proposals dealing with citizenship by descent, citizenship for adopted children and citizenship for persons known as lost Canadians.

For Canadians watching at home, I must clarify that Bill C-3 is recycled legislation. It is a reiteration of Bill C-71, which was introduced by the Trudeau government in the last Parliament but failed to pass because it did not achieve the support required to become law. Despite the failure of the last bill, here we are, examining the same bill. Rather than listening to the concerns raised by members of the House, elected by Canadian citizens, the government has wilfully chosen to bring the same flawed bill back again.

The government has not changed; only the deck chairs have changed. It seems that either the government was not listening when the proposals were debated in the 44th Parliament, or it now does not care that members raised concerns and objections to those proposals. It is certainly a curious scene when a government speaks a great deal about collaboration and consensus building and then hits replay on a piece of legislation without including amendments or responding to the concerns and objections already raised by elected members.

I hope my colleagues across the way are truthful when they speak of collaboration and working together. I look forward to working with them and supporting amendments the Conservatives will likely provide so the legislation can hit the precise balance I mentioned earlier. Canadians deserve no less from their Parliament. I hope members across the way will join us in fulfilling our duties to Canadians.

Bill C-3, in its current form, seeks to establish Canadian citizenship by descent; Conservatives do not support this part of the bill. The legislation seeks to automatically extend Canadian citizenship to unlimited generations born abroad with only minimal connection to Canada.

Prior to 2009, Canadian citizens could pass on their citizenship for two generations born outside Canada; after 2009, it was changed to one generation and the first-generation rule was introduced to limit the extension of Canadian citizenship. Under the 2009 rule, a Canadian citizen born outside Canada could pass their citizenship to their child born outside Canada for one generation, but descendants of the next generation born outside Canada were not automatically extended citizenship. That was called the first-generation rule. Bill C-3 that we are debating today would effectively abolish that rule and replace it with a rule allowing citizenship to be extended to generation after generation born abroad, endlessly, over and over.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has sent the first-generation rule back to Parliament to be reworked. The court also concluded that it was reasonable to apply a substantial connection test for extension of citizenship, and this is an important question for Parliament to answer as we examine and potentially amend the bill. The only test that the bill proposes for the endless extension of Canadian citizenship to persons born abroad is that they spend 1,095 days, which is three years, in Canada. These are nonconsecutive days, I might add. I believe all members agree there is a problem that requires a solution, but the current proposals in the bill must be amended. I am sure my Conservative colleagues will have amendments prepared for committee examination of the bill if it gets to committee. Conservatives will be ready to work collaboratively to balance the bill at committee, and I hope all other sides will likewise co-operate to improve the legislation and provide an appropriate solution for the problem that must be resolved.

The second provision of the bill deals with citizenship for children adopted from abroad by Canadian citizens. The bill proposes to extend citizenship to children adopted from abroad by Canadian citizens once the adoption is finalized. This proposal makes sense, and it strikes the right balance when considering who should be eligible for Canadian citizenship.

The third proposal of the bill relates to restoring citizenship for persons born in the late 1970s or early 1980s who were unintentionally prevented from applying for citizenship after the age of 28. Conservatives recognize the need for this situation to be remedied. That is why my Conservative colleague, Senator Yonah Martin, brought this very proposal forward in Bill S-245 in the previous Parliament. This measure should have passed two years ago, and I certainly hope colleagues across the way will walk the talk of collaboration to finally get this important measure finalized.

In closing, we must work to improve the bill, which must be balanced because citizenship by descent for endless generations is simply not sustainable, nor is it appropriate. Great damage has been inflicted on the Canadian immigration system over the past decade; this has shaken the trust that Canadians used to place in Canada's immigration and citizenship system. This damage was caused by policies that were unbalanced and reckless. Let us work together to start restoring an immigration system that works and conserves the value of being a Canadian citizen. Canadians deserve no less.

[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.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions that was asked to the government in the prior Parliament was how many people this bill might affect. That was when it was in its previous form, as Bill C-71, and the Liberals did not have an answer. They had no clue, basically. They could not make an estimate, which then leads to obvious questions. The member spoke about health care, but it also raises questions about other expenses we might incur.

Speaking on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, what does the member think about that? Should there be at least numbers of people, so that there can be estimates of costs and impacts on Canada from this issue?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again in the House of Commons, for the first time this fall session after a couple of interventions as a newly elected member in the spring. It is such an honour to be here to represent the great people of southwestern Manitoba and the Wheat City of Brandon.

Bill C-3 is an important topic. Our Manitoba Conservative caucus just completed a couple of days of caucus retreat to make sure we were hearing from different stakeholders, industry groups, etc., from the province, to make sure we are on top of issues coming back to Parliament today. We certainly heard a lot about immigration. It is top of mind for a lot of Manitobans right now. Manitoba has always been an interesting context within the framework of the overall immigration system across the country.

I recognize some comments from members opposite about immigration and that this is a citizenship bill, which is a separate conversation. However, if this bill ends up being passed in its current form, there would be a significant number of new Canadians as a result who would be eligible to be Canadian citizens and to receive all the rights and privileges that that entitles them to, which in effect still affects the number of Canadian citizens.

We are in a time when we are talking, in the broader immigration context, about the fact that all of our social services, particularly our health care system and, without question, our housing system, have not been able to compete and keep up with the number of people coming into Canada and becoming new citizens of this country. The members opposite seem to want to completely differentiate this conversation and say that it has no impact whatsoever, the context of who would be impacted by this bill. Certainly we on this side and the vast majority of common-sense Canadians understand that the two are related and that these two topics have to go hand in hand when we are talking about whether Canada is prepared to welcome these potential Canadian citizens, if they get their citizenship, back into the country and what the impact of that would be.

The member opposite also talked a lot about our colleague in the Senate, Senator Martin's Bill S-245. My colleague from Ponoka—Didsbury covered that quite well, in that that bill very specifically dealt with lost Canadians, which is certainly a challenging situation, and we supported it as Conservatives. I was not here, of course, being a newly elected member, but it is certainly something we supported. It is unfortunate that Senator Martin's bill was stalled and delayed by the Liberals and their allies in the previous Parliament. It should be law by now; it should be in effect. Unfortunately, Bill C-3 and its predecessor, Bill C-71, are dramatically expanded in the terms of their scope. We as Conservatives have some serious questions as well as some amendments to propose about exactly what we feel could improve this piece of legislation.

To be clear, we very much support the provisions that came from Bill S-245 by Senator Martin supporting section 8, lost Canadians. This is something that, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned, was a compounding of bad legislation that should have been addressed a long time ago.

We also support the equal treatment of adopted children. In a previous role, I worked for the Minister of Families in Manitoba. For those who do not have the context on that, Manitoba has one of the largest CFS systems in the country, a very tragic legacy of the treatment of children there. Too often, in both federal and provincial law, adopted children and adoptive families are forgotten about or left behind in the framework that we proceed under in supporting young families and children in this country. We certainly support that update to ensure that they are treated equally, as they should be, as true families.

However, there are lots of concerns. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands used Rosie O'Donnell and the idea of her citizenship getting revoked by Donald Trump as an example, but Rosie O'Donnell was born in the United States, so that is not a good example in terms of the discussion we are having today. We are talking about people who were not born in Canada and their children who were not born in Canada.

On this discussion about the reasonable connection to the country of Canada, 1,095 days, or three years, and non-consecutive, on face value, to the majority of my constituents anyway, sounds like a long period of time. Let us look at that a little more at length. Someone who is the child of a foreign-born Canadian citizen and whose grandparents were born in Canada may have had summer breaks here as a baby, as a toddler, a couple of times in high school and a couple of times in their twenties, but then at 50, 60 or 70 decide they want to go through this process that the bill before us seeks to put in place to become a Canadian citizen. They may not have spent time in the country for decades, because there is no time frame imposed for when the 1,095 days have to be taken. Exactly when is that going to impact the systems that seniors who are Canadian citizens, quite rightly, come to rely on?

If we have thousands of people or tens of thousands, which is estimated, who are going through this process later in life, they may not have paid tax. Somebody across the way was saying that, “Oh, all these people who would be impacted by the bill are almost all paying taxes in Canada already.” Well, I am not sure why that would be the case if they are not citizens of this country now and they have never lived here. Members opposite cannot provide any evidence as to how many have paid into the OAS or GIS systems or into the health care system. In fact, their own department cannot tell us how many people the bill would make eligible for Canadian citizenship. In fact, IRCC officials were questioned on that the last time the bill, in its previous form, was up for debate, and the officials could not answer that question at committee. They have no idea how many people may now be eligible, if the bill passes, to claim Canadian citizenship after having never lived here or having spent only, at the minimum, 1,095 days here over the course of their entire lives.

I am not sure how the government can claim that it has been planning this out for years and has known about this for decades. Members opposite are very aggressive about how terrible this has been and that they needed to address it. It is coming 10 years into their mandate. They have no numbers to back up how many people this may impact, what the impact on our health care system may be and what the impact on OAS and other income supports may be. Why have they not done any planning?

Canadians, particularly young Canadians, are frustrated with immigration and the fact that they cannot find an affordable home, or that when they are expecting a child they cannot get into an emergency room to get the health care they need. These are issues that are top of mind for the young Canadians and the rural Canadians who sent me here to represent them as their voice. They do not believe in a Liberal government that has failed to plan time and time again and that has brought hundreds of thousands of people into Canada without the proper planning, without that expectation, and without criminal record checks or language tests in place. My constituents, and I think many constituents of colleagues across the country, expect better planning by the Liberals.

The Conservative team is going to put forward recommendations to improve the bill, so that there are real standards for these folks to be able to prove a commitment. The member for Provencher said earlier that we believe that Canadian citizenship requires an investment in Canada. If a person has not lived here their entire life and has no intention of living here, we do not believe that is a stringent enough requirement in order to qualify for Canadian citizenship.

That is the Conservative Party's position, and we look forward to further debate with members opposite on this legislation as it moves forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by thanking the hon. member who preceded me. It is one thing for a member to say they have championed the bill, Bill C-3, and repairing the rights for lost Canadians, but as a leader of a different party, I want to say that the hon. member for Vancouver East is absolutely right. She has championed this and championed this and not stepped back for one minute. It has not been easy.

We have had various versions of the bill come to us. We had a court decision that made it very clear that our citizenship laws are not charter-compliant. As I have, she has worked with a citizen, Don Chapman, who has championed this, who has brought forward the concerns. He wrote a book on lost Canadians to get people to see what has happened with citizenship, which used to be seen as a right passed down from parent to child. This is not new. I learned this in conflict of laws in law school, as I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you may recall. These kinds of things are not innovative. It is just very strange and disturbing for Canadians when our citizenship laws get contaminated with innovations, and citizenship is not treated as a right. That is one piece that is missing in Bill C-3. Should we have an amendment in Bill C-3 that says citizenship is a right?

However, there have been a lot of partisan jabs across the floor, even in the brief time that we have been debating this since question period. I want to take some of them up, because this is important for Canadians to know. There is another person, not in my party, whom I want to thank and make it really clear to our friends across the way in the Conservative Party. Another champion for the bill, mentioned by my hon. colleague for Vancouver East, is a Conservative, Senator Yonah Martin. She tried really hard to fix the bill. She has Korean ancestry. She has been a champion for the Canadian Korean community in many ways, including for those who suffered through the war. She is a friend of mine too, so I will admit that. Senator Yonah Martin brought this forward as a private member's bill out of the Senate to try to fix this, and as the hon. member for Vancouver East mentioned, there was a non-partisan effort among NDP members, Conservative members, Liberal members, the Bloc and the Greens to get this thing done. We were so close.

When Bill C-71 was tabled for first reading in June 2024, we gathered in the foyer with the former minister of immigration and members of families deeply affected by the unfairness of the way our citizenship laws are currently drafted. We were almost euphoric, and we were grateful to the former minister of immigration, who took this forward, who made the difference to having Bill C-71 brought forward. We were not, as an hon. member mentioned earlier, just propping up Liberals or cheering whenever Liberals did something. Again, this was the ultimate non-partisan effort led by a Conservative senator, supported by an NDP member and supported by all of us on all sides of the House. We thought we had it solved. Unfortunately, 25 bills then died on the Order Paper on January 6.

Now, it would have been nice to see the current government pick up on a suggestion I made in a written communication to the Prime Minister to please recover those bills, especially the ones that had broad, non-partisan support and had gotten this close to the finish line. Regarding the amount of waste, I imagine that millions of hours of work went into those 25 bills, many of them so close, such as Bill C-61 on first nations water sovereignty or Bill C-33 on rail safety and ports.

Let us celebrate this: The deceased Bill C-71 is back as Bill C-3. Let us hope we can have collaboration now. The Liberals here in the House today celebrate the collaboration they had in June; I have to say, that was not collaboration. That was the Greens, the Bloc and the NDP being bulldozed, with a new person driving the bulldozer in our new Prime Minister. I would say it was not just an unpleasant experience; it was an anti-democratic experience that was deeply troubling, and it was a bulldozer driver. It was a new coalition, the Liberals and the Conservatives, driving through a very anti-democratic piece, and the process was particularly anti-democratic. I hope we will not see that again.

I go back to Bill C-3.

If we are going to see this bill pass, and I hope we will see it passed expeditiously, I want to deal with some of the substantive charges that have been made in the House today in debate and put them to rest, I hope forever, so that we can return to our purpose in this place, to restore justice, to act for our constituents and to make sure we do the right thing.

This is not a partisan issue. It is about doing the right thing right now. We have a new bill before us, Bill C-3. It is almost the same as former Bill C-71, which died on the Order Paper because of the decision to prorogue Parliament on January 6.

We speak of things dying on the Order Paper; it is nice to see that every now and then we can have a resurrection. We have gotten Bill C-3 back, and it is close. I would love to have proper hearings and make sure that concerns that are being raised are dealt with by experts, with the ability for Canadians to see that we do not pass things with a gun to our head. That was Bill C-5. No committee was in in place when Bill C-5 went to second reading on Monday, June 16. No committee was yet started. On Tuesday, June 17, the committee was put in place at 3:30 in the afternoon. All amendments were due the next day, June 18, by noon, and concerns from groups like the Canadian Cancer Society could not be heard before amendments were due. We were in a hurry.

This place should be about getting things done efficiently, but not being in such a hurry that we do not do our jobs, so let us have a proper committee review of this legislation, which I think would put to bed some concerns, for instance, the idea of costs. There are Canadians who, just through peculiarities of mistakes made in the legislative process, have been denied their citizenship. We can get through this and get the actual numbers through a committee hearing process, but most of these lost Canadians live in Canada. They are not coming here as new people, just off a boat, where we wonder who they are. Most of these people have deep ties to Canada. Most of these people are already paying taxes in Canada and getting their health care in Canada. They have just been denied citizenship through the most egregious set of quite obscure and bizarre mistakes in law.

We can fix those. We can fix them now. We can fix them for good. The remaining question, I suppose, is this: Do we want to add an amendment that says citizenship is a right? Normally, I would not think we would have to say this, but when I look south of the border and hear that Donald Trump would like to take away Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship, I think maybe we ought to be concerned and make sure that we in Canada assert what is internationally understood law, that citizenship rights are rights.

People who are citizens cannot have their right to be a citizen taken away because someone in power has an obscure whim. Never mind. Citizenship should be a right. Under Bill C-3, we would be redressing the mistakes of many years and responding to the requirement of the court that we fix our citizenship laws to be charter-compliant.

With that, I know I still have about 90 seconds on the clock. I just want to make sure I plead with all of my colleagues, regardless of party, to take a step back and look at who the champions of this bill have been: a leading Conservative senator; a leading NDP member in this House; and all of us together, Green, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and New Democrat, which is still a party in this House, by the way. Members can check the seating chart.

We are here to do the right thing and do it together.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the discussion and the debate about Bill C-3.

This morning the bill was debated, and I listened intently to the debate back and forth, which was primarily from Conservative members. I actually did not even hear, from the members who stood, about the purpose of the bill, why we are here and the remedy that Bill C-3 is proposing. Let me start with that. Why are we here, and what is Bill C-3 all about?

First, Bill C-3 is a piece of legislation attempting to correct a wrong. It is attempting to make Canada's citizenship laws charter-compliant. In fact, Canada's citizenship laws have not been charter-compliant for decades. Why is that? It is because we have a set of archaic immigration citizenship rules.

Somewhere along the way through the history, and more specifically pertaining to the piece of legislation before us, in 2006, the Conservatives, under the Harper administration, saw fit to take away citizenship rights for those who are the second generation born abroad. The Harper government took away the rights of Canadian citizens who are the first generation born abroad to pass on their citizenship to their children who were also born abroad. If an immigrant who became a Canadian were to have a child outside of Canada, they could not pass on their citizenship to their child. That citizenship right was stripped away for Canadians by the Conservatives.

As a result, many people had to separate themselves from their families, and some children were even born stateless. Canada is a global country. We go abroad to work, to study and to travel, and, guess what, as life would have it, sometimes we fall in love. Sometimes we marry people abroad. Sometimes we have children abroad. If this happened to a second-generation born-abroad child, they would not have Canadian citizenship rights.

The matter was actually challenged in the courts. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that it was in violation of charter rights, and the government had to remedy that. In the last Parliament, there were several attempts to try to fix this. In fact, Senator Yonah Martin brought in a Senate bill to try to fix it. Through much debate, much effort and much collaboration, I, as the immigration critic for the NDP, raised the matter and worked with the government to bring forward amendments to fix the bill and fix the charter violation, and we did.

We went through a whole series of discussions, lengthy debates and committee work, and we came through with a number of amendments, which passed, but then the bill never had third reading in the House. Why is that? It is because the Conservatives filibustered the debate and used a whole bunch of rules and tactics that delayed that debate, and it never came back.

In the midst of all of that, I said to the government that if it wanted to make sure Canada's citizenship rules were charter-compliant, it needed to bring forward a government bill. It agreed. Conservatives, by the way, at the time actually said that if the government brought forward a bill, they would support it.

The government brought forward a bill, and what happened? There were more games played. The Conservatives again filibustered the House, and Bill C-71 was never actually passed.

Here we are again, with Bill C-3, for the third round, still trying to fix the situation where the judge ruled that Canada's citizenship law is unconstitutional. It is not charter-compliant. The court had to give the government multiple extensions to fix the situation. This is why we are here today.

If the first-generation born-abroad Canadians decide to go abroad and have a child, they cannot pass on their Canadian citizenship to their child at all, and, of course, they run the risk of rendering their child stateless.

The Bjorkquist decision held that the second-generation cut-off violates section 15 by discriminating against first-generation born-abroad women more particularly, stating:

[The cut-off] disadvantages pregnant first-generation born abroad women who are living abroad when they get pregnant by placing them in the position where they have to make choices between their careers, financial stability and independence, and health care on the one hand, and the ability to ensure their child receives Canadian citizenship on the other.

Women's reproductive autonomy and family planning are extremely time-sensitive, and the Conservatives' legal impediment to exercising this freedom comes at a human cost to women, parents and children. This is the reality.

An estimated 170,000 women born abroad in the age range when people often start a family are being affected by the current law. As reported, the justice said in her June decision that “these are not ‘theoretical or minor constitutional violations’ but ones that could lead to ‘children being stateless.’”

She went on to say:

They can lead to women having to make choices between their financial health and independence on one hand, and their physical health on the other. They can separate families.... They can force children to stay in places that are unsafe for them. They can interfere with some of the deepest and most profound connections that human beings both enjoy and need.

That is why we are here today. This is what we are trying to fix.

What I heard the Conservatives talk about was the connections test, that somehow these Canadian citizenship rights are deemed not to be rights. They somehow treat it that one has to earn one's citizenship back. However, if people are Canadian, they have Canadian birthrights that are being passed on. These are not immigrants per se, trying to get their citizenship through an immigration process. These are their birthrights. The connections test in this remedy is that they have to establish and show they have a connection to Canada. The substantial connections test in the legislation requires they have some connection in Canada, having been here for 1,095 days nonconsecutively, because people travel. They move and work abroad. Therefore, they have to show a connections test of 1,095 days nonconsecutively.

I have heard the Conservatives say that there should be a criminality test. Would they apply a criminality test to Canadians who were born in Canada to say that if they commit an offence, they will lose their birthright of being Canadian? No. We have the judicial system that we can go through to deal with that. If there are criminality issues, a person would then go before a judge and the process would follow as it should.

It is time for us to fix this problem once and for all. Canada's immigration citizenship laws should be charter-compliant to respect the rights of women and women who have children abroad and to respect the rights of all Canadians who travel abroad. We are global citizens; we work and travel abroad. It is time that we honour all of our rights as equal in Canada.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again stand in the House and speak on the first day back in session.

First, to all my colleagues, I want to say welcome back. After a summer spent in our constituencies, I am certain we are all excited to be back doing the work Canadians elected us to do. As a new MP elected just under five months ago, I can say that it has been a busy summer in Edmonton Southeast talking with people, studying their issues and building a new office that will faithfully serve them. I want to thank the people of Edmonton Southeast again for putting their trust in me to be their champion in Ottawa.

The people of Edmonton Southeast are upset. They are upset with rising crime. They are upset with the chaos in the immigration system. They are upset with the cost of living crisis. They are upset with the old Liberals, who did nothing under Justin Trudeau and have done nothing under the current Liberal Prime Minister. To Edmonton Southeast, I am here and I am listening. I am eager to bring their voices to the House and to fight for them.

Bill C-3 is just another Liberal upset. This amendment to the Citizenship Act would do little but cheapen what Canadian citizenship is. Right now, Canadians living abroad pass Canadian citizenship on to their children. However, if the family continues to live outside of Canada, it would not pass on to the next generation. There is a one-generation limit. There are reasons that a one-generation limit exists. Introduced by Stephen Harper in 2009, it was a reasonable and necessary measure to stop Canadians of convenience.

This Liberal bill would throw that out. All that would be required of a foreign-born Canadian is to spend three non-consecutive years of their life in Canada, and they can pass on citizenship to their children. This would create a repeating cycle. Generation after generation of foreign-born people could maintain Canadian citizenship without ever living in Canada. People who have never been in Canada would get citizenship because their parents spent a few months in Canada and their parents spent a few months in Canada, and so on. It is chain migration.

This would not be a small number of people either. We are talking about 100,000 new people who would become eligible to get Canadian citizenship if this law passes, with no background check, no security check and no need to contribute to Canada. This would be on top of an already backlogged immigration system that cannot even keep up with the number of people applying for citizenship who are living in and contributing to Canada.

I am an immigrant, like many in this House. Like many across the country, I worked to become a Canadian. I contributed to Canadian society. I built my career. I am raising my family here. I am representing my neighbours and community here in our sacred democratic institution. I, like many Canadians, chose to invest myself here and become part of this great country because I believed in it. Canadian citizenship comes with value, responsibility and something we Canadians truly love and believe in.

Being Canadian is something many people seek. There are many people who have invested their lives, built businesses and raised families in this country. So many of these people are still waiting for citizenship. There are many good people taking the right steps out of love for this country.

It is a long process and has many hurdles. One has to prove their commitment to this country. It has always been a privilege to be earned by birth or by contributing to and living in this country. It has never been up for grabs so easily with so little effort in Canadian history. If Bill C-3 passes as is, we will have two tiers of foreign-born Canadian citizens. We will have those like me, who worked hard to proudly call themselves Canadians, and we will have those who were raised abroad and have a grandparent or great-grandparent born in Canada.

Neither of these groups was born in Canada, but only one would need to believe in Canada to get citizenship. Only one would need to prove themselves to get citizenship. Only one would truly need to contribute to get citizenship. Do not mistake me for believing that foreign-born relatives do not deserve Canadian citizenship. There are Canadian families that live much of their lives abroad and that have children abroad, but we need to have reasonable measures in place.

This legislation would come with major risks to the immigration department, the IRCC, as well. When the bill was proposed in the last Parliament session as Bill C-71, it was estimated that over 100,000 people would get Canadian citizenship.

At the moment, IRCC is completely dysfunctional. There is a massive backlog that has pushed back the decision-making ability of IRCC way past the acceptable timelines. In the few months since I was elected, over 400 constituents have come to me with their concerns over delays with IRCC applications. Papers are misfiled. Officials do not respond. On average, it takes 18 months to two years for people who are living in Canada, who are investing in Canada and who are building in Canada to get their citizenship complete.

The status quo is not okay. People's life plans, their futures and their families are being messed up because IRCC cannot process their applications in a timely manner. If over 100,000 citizenship requests were added to the system tomorrow, what would happen to the system?

I wonder if the minister would consider the practical organizational effects of the legislation. It would be a nightmare for the department. A great Canadian, Dr. Jordan Peterson, once wrote that if a person wants to change the world, they should start by making their bed. If the immigration minister wants to change immigration in this country so badly, perhaps she should start making her bed by fixing the absolute embarrassment of the immigration department, IRCC, and its backlog.

There are good things in the bill, and Conservatives will support those things. However, Conservatives want the bill to be amended. There is room for compromise, but what is clear is that the requirement of three years, or 1,095 nonconsecutive days, spent in Canada in order to pass on citizenship to the next generation is unacceptable. There must be stronger ties, such as at least five years of time; then we would know that the people have invested in Canada. They have children who have ties with Canada, and it would not be just because of a technicality for convenience that they would pass their citizenship on.

The hon. Minister of Immigration said on the record that the Liberals are open to amendments. I hope she keeps her word. The bill could be properly studied in the immigration committee, and real safeguards could be put in place so that Canadian citizenship is not weakened and abused. Then those who were born here, or those millions of other Canadians who worked as hard as I did to become Canadian citizens, can feel that their citizenship is worth something.

In closing, I want to see the bill fixed. I want to see this go to the immigration committee. Conservatives want proper safeguards in place. We want stronger requirements for passing down citizenship. It is clear that Conservatives are the ones standing up for strong and fair Canadian citizenship. My hope is that the eyes of my colleagues across the aisle will be opened to the need to protect Canadian citizenship and to amend the bill.

[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.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in this place after a very eventful summer. It is nice to see my colleagues. Welcome back to you, Madam Speaker.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Niagara South. Today we are debating an important piece of legislation that seeks to make amendments to the Citizenship Act and that for a third time is up for debate in this chamber.

For those who have not been following Bill C-3, it is the third iteration, which started as Bill S-245 in the other place, introduced in the last Parliament. The original iteration of the bill was commendable and received bipartisan support from this chamber. In it, the bill sought to achieve two key changes, with the first relating to adoption.

Currently, if parents adopt a child from abroad, once the adoption is completed they are required to file a permanent residency application on behalf of the child. The financial cost associated with this can be quite high, often requiring the services of an immigration consultant or lawyer, and the process can be incredibly stressful and time-consuming for the family seeking to adopt. That bill and Bill C-3 would do away with that process entirely and instead allow for the adopted child to obtain citizenship as if they were born in Canada, the moment the adoption itself is finalized. This is a positive change and one that Conservatives support.

The second component of the original bill dealt with the issue of lost Canadians, a topic with which I was unfamiliar prior to arriving here. This deals with restoring citizenship to a group of people born between 1977 and 1981 who had lost their citizenship as a result of a glitch in our immigration system. Again, Conservatives supported this provision.

What is the issue that our side has with this bill? The problem lies with the third component of this bill, which did not exist until the Liberal-NDP coalition hijacked the original bill at committee stage in the last Parliament. During clause-by-clause review, and by way of last-minute changes, the Liberals inserted a controversial clause creating multi-generational citizenship, which went far beyond the original intent of the bill. Ultimately, because of this last-minute change, which sought to fundamentally alter the way citizenship is passed on in Canada for citizens living abroad, this bill got bogged down in committee and died on the Order Paper.

The government proceeded to reintroduce the bill as a government bill, Bill C-71, which also failed to pass. Today, the government is trying again, for a third time, introducing what is effectively the same bill with the same controversies and somehow expecting it to have a different result. Let us take a moment to look at what multi-generational citizenship is and the issues we have with it.

Currently, passing on Canadian citizenship to children born abroad is subject to the first-generation limit introduced by the Harper government in 2009 through Bill C-37. The first-generation limit states that only the first generation of children born abroad can automatically claim and obtain Canadian citizenship. A Canadian citizen can pass on their citizenship to their child born outside of Canada, but the next generation also born abroad would not automatically receive it. This new bill would change that by creating a substantial connection test. Specifically, if a parent wants to pass citizenship to their child, they must prove that they have spent at least 1,095 non-consecutive days physically present in Canada at one point in their lives before the birth of their child abroad, subject to some conditions.

This means that citizenship now is multi-generational, as parents no longer have to be born in Canada. This can translate into having a family permanently living abroad, with multiple generations born outside Canada, gaining citizenship. To assist those watching, imagine this scenario: A second-generation Canadian parent who has been living abroad for nearly their entire life could, in theory, send their kids to school in Canada for three years, at a discounted rate, and that would make those children eligible for Canadian citizenship.

That person would never have to file a T1 in Canada or be required to speak either of our two official languages, yet they would be eligible for citizenship, given the simple fact that at one point in their life they spent three non-consecutive years visiting Canada. Their child could, in fact, repeat the process for their children and pass on citizenship onto yet another generation. That is akin to generational citizenship in perpetuity. The only requirement is the three-year stay in Canada.

I am proud to be Canadian. I ran for public office to better the lives of the people in my community, bring investments to the Niagara region and advocate for the issues that the people in my community care deeply about.

Individuals who were born abroad and who have spent their entire adult lives there, do not pay taxes here and do not have any real connection to the sense of community that makes us Canadian should not be eligible for citizenship, in my opinion. To allow individuals who have never truly lived here to enjoy all the benefits that come with being a Canadian citizen, including health care, government pensions, voting, protection from our government while abroad or even the privilege of running as an elected official, seems wrong to me.

Frankly, in my opinion and that of many of my Conservative colleagues, these amendments diminish the value of our citizenship and turn what otherwise would have been a very good piece of legislation into a piece of bad legislation.

If members opposite took the time to speak to some of the permanent residents in their riding who pay taxes, contribute to our communities and are building lives here with their families, I believe they would find that they too agree with the Conservative position and are frustrated with how people with such inconsequential connections to Canada could obtain citizenship.

Most importantly, the legislation assumes the government would be able to properly manage it. The success and implementation of these changes are based on whether IRCC or CBSA would in fact verify when Canadians arrive and when they leave to determine whether they are eligible to meet the substantial connection test of 1,095 days. This is a monumental task when one considers that over four million Canadian citizens currently live abroad, according to Stats Canada. This opens the door to yet another enormous bureaucratic burden and cost.

The staff in my constituency office have been flooded with requests and complaints this past summer regarding IRCC's poor handling of immigration casework and the backlogs it faces. Members will pardon me for not having faith in the Liberal government, which cannot even seem to deliver passports on time, let alone track the movement of millions of citizens abroad.

Lastly, I would like to comment on the view that the Conservatives were obstructionist with the legislation at committee in the last Parliament. First, the concerns regarding fundamental changes to multi-generational citizenship are quite legitimate, and debating the issue of whether individuals with few ties to Canada should receive citizenship is indeed a valid concern worth significant discussion. Some of these individuals may have spent their entire life abroad except for three short nonconsecutive years; this is not substantial enough and is like counting vacation days to qualify for citizenship.

Citizenship is the most valuable asset one can enjoy in Canada. Citizens should know and learn about our values, our history and the very fabric of our nation. These are things that should not be simply discarded or replaced over an 1,100-day stay in Canada. To that end, I look forward to working with other members of the committee to dive deeper into these issues in good faith so that we can move forward with what otherwise would have been a very good piece of legislation.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. The proposed bill has three pieces to it to address issues related to citizenship by descent, lost citizenship and the status of born-abroad or adopted children of Canadian citizens. The stated aim is to ensure that individuals born to or adopted by Canadian parents outside Canada have a path to obtaining or retaining Canadian citizenship.

Canada is a beautiful, sovereign and distinct nation with a rich history and free democracy, with values and an identity that have been built and that have existed for longer than just our lifetime. Canadian citizenship, as defined by former minister for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism Jason Kenney, “is more than a legal status, more than a passport. We expect citizens to have an ongoing commitment, connection and loyalty to Canada.”

Former Liberal minister for citizenship and immigration Lucienne Robillard said, “We [ought] to share our citizenship with those who want it and work hard to deserve it.”

While the Liberal government claims that it is trying to right historical wrongs by loosening its test of connection to our country, it is proposing to remove safeguards and to allow citizenship to be granted without the need for connection, engaging civically or contributing to the social safety nets in Canada that many rely on. In other words, it is proposing to share our citizenship with people who do not want to, in the words of the former Liberal minister, “work hard to deserve it”.

The bill contains elements that could undermine trust at a time when Canadians are seeking to unite in the midst of uncertainty. The bill, however, is also nothing new. It was tabled by the previous Liberal government as Bill C-71 and, before that, in the Senate, as Bill S-245, which was heavily altered by the Liberals and New Democrats, yet another classic example of a Liberal band-aid-like solution to a problem without considering the consequences.

Citizenship is a connection to a home. It is loyalty to one's country. Canadian citizenship comes with a promise that anyone from anywhere can achieve anything if they are willing to work hard. Reducing the requirement to obtain citizenship threatens to undermine the millions of Canadians who have come for decades, fleeing persecution, violence and war, or those seeking to give a better life to their children than they had. It required a process, and it required effort. It required planting roots in Canada, involving themselves in their community and engaging with their fellow Canadians.

Each province within Canada has unique needs, interests, identities and culture. Some have their own distinct language. One provision in Bill C-3 would require a person to live in Canada for 1,095 days. However, it would not require the 1,095 days to be consecutive, meaning that Canadian citizenship may not require participation or a love for their province and the country.

My riding is rural, and families from Saskatchewan have had roots planted in their community for generations, caring and working for the success of one another. It takes time and commitment, resulting in a way of life that is loved and respected by those around them. The west was settled by pioneers, people who risked everything, leaving the comforts of what was known, in order to build a life elsewhere that could be better. The key here is to build a life. It is important that this experience is also shared by those people seeking Canadian citizenship.

Justin Trudeau spent years devaluing and trying to erase what makes up the Canadian identity, referring to Canada as a “postnational state”. Measures like the one set out in Bill C-3 devalue the importance of choosing Canada as a home with shared duties and responsibilities. While the Liberals had no clue and were unable to even guess how many people the change could affect, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that if the bill passes, more than 100,000 new people would be granted citizenship in five years.

At a time when Canadians feel that the health care system and our economy are more fragile than ever, the Liberal government wants to issue new citizenship without requiring that the people in question pay taxes, just to reside in Canada from time to time over the course of their lifetime. With no requirement that it be consecutive or accomplished within a time frame, and for those of descent, citizenship could be passed to those who have never lived in Canada.

Conservatives will always support positive changes that seek to correct issues to current legislation. That is why it is so difficult to support the bill in its current form. At the time the bill was introduced, not even the parliamentary secretary had read it until that same morning. The legislation seems to create more challenges than it solves. We owe it to both Canadians and newcomers to handle this fragile system with the utmost care. I fail to see that this is what is happening with the last-minute communications from a minister to a parliamentary secretary when it was introduced.

For example, let us talk about the backlog in citizenship applications. The backlog is in the hundreds of thousands, while the government has failed to meet its own metrics for processing applications in spades. There are no details that outline what background checks would look like or even whether they would occur at all. Canadians should be able to expect that their elected leaders would consider their safety ahead of rushed solutions.

The department, IRCC, has nearly a million total applicants outside acceptable processing times. That is on top of the more than one million applicants it claims are waiting for their application to be resolved. What is the plan to solve the new influx of citizenship applications if we are going to add 30% more in just five years? Adding more seems like a plan to fail, more than it seems like a plan.

I hope for the sake of Canadians that the bill is not an example of how the Liberal government plans to enact changes, by simply rushing the process instead of fixing the deep-rooted issues it has spent the last 10 years creating.

Conservatives know that it is not just the legislation that is the issue; it is also that the Liberal government continues to put bandages over a broken immigration system. Canadians are looking for change from the fourth-term Liberal government, change that delivers on the promises the Liberals made in the last election rather than the same old band-aid solutions that may cause even more damage.

While we are a generous and compassionate nation, citizenship must be valued, and immigration should work for the betterment of Canadians and Canada. Conservatives will always stand on the side of a fair and robust system that does not disenfranchise Canadians or potentially risk their safety.

That is why Conservatives, through Bill S-245, sought to correct the very changes the Liberals are now claiming to fix, but without creating more problems for our already overburdened immigration system. The members opposite me are using the bill that the Conservatives brought forward to put forward their own ideological biases. The Liberals changed it and then stalled it in the Senate. They have never given an account to Canadians and to those they claim they are trying to help for why they delayed the solution we brought forward and why they put their own interests first. I think that is shameful.

While the Liberals say it is because of an Ontario court ruling from June 2023, a ruling they never appealed, it is now an emergency, and only because they have not been able to propose a decent piece of legislation and get it passed in the last two years. Canadians deserve and should be able to expect better from their government.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be back in the House of Commons representing the people of Regina—Lewvan.

If I can have some leeway, we obviously had the summer to go back to our ridings to talk to our constituents to find out some of the main points and topics they would like us to discuss here in the House of Commons on their behalf. We did some barbecue circuits and had lots of events in Regina—Lewvan. It is a busy place.

Some things that came up were about affordability. We are facing an affordability crisis in the country. We are also facing a housing crisis and an inflation crisis in this country. Those tie into some of the questions I have regarding Bill C-3 when it comes to what the Liberals are going to do with it. We want to get it to committee so we can put some amendments forward to strengthen it. We agree with some parts of it, but we really want to know what the value of our Canadian citizenship will look like with the Liberals and how it is going to be passed on from generation to generation.

I think the number of Canadian citizens we will be adding is about 115,000. Right now, with the climate in our country, do we know how many would come to Canada? Would there be homes for these people if they came to Canada? These were some of the questions I had when I first glanced at Bill C-3.

One question I would love a Liberal colleague to answer, maybe the member for Winnipeg North, is whether the Liberals consulted with the provinces on this bill. Were there conversations? A lot of the time there are unintended consequences to some of the legislation and policies the Liberals bring forward. If people who get citizenship come back to Canada, what will that look like for the health care system? Have the Liberals thought about that? The health care systems across the provinces are under strain right now. What would this bill do to the health care system in Saskatchewan or Manitoba? When we look at a bill like this, I would say there are a lot of potential unintended consequences to adding that many citizens to this country.

I know a Conservative senator put forward a bill like this in the other place, but Bill C-3 broadens the scope of birthright citizenship substantially. We have questions about expanding that scope. How much pressure does it put on the programs and systems we have in our country that are already on the verge of not being able to handle the influx of people who access those systems, such as health care and education? When we look at this bill, we really want to make some amendments to it. I believe some of my colleagues have talked about working collaboratively in the new session to make sure we have good pieces of legislation going forward for the Canadian people. That is something we look forward to doing by putting forward amendments.

Bill C-3 is the latest attempt by the Liberals to overhaul Canada's citizenship laws. Originally introduced as Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament, it builds on Conservative Senator Yonah Martin's Bill S-245, which targeted a narrow group that was inadvertently affected by the 2009 reforms under the Harper government. This is something we have had our eye and focus on to make sure there is some fairness for the people who were affected in 2009. However, rather than maintaining that focus, as I mentioned earlier, the NDP used its alliance with the Liberals at committee to push forward sweeping changes well beyond the bill's intent. Then when Bill S-245 was stalled, the Liberals reintroduced the expanded version of Bill C-71 in the last in Parliament, which is now Bill C-3.

This legislation drastically broadens access to citizenship far beyond what we can support. It includes measures responding to the December 2023 Ontario Superior Court ruling that struck down the first-generation limitation on citizenship for children born abroad. That was not appealed by the federal government. Under Bill C-3, citizenship would be extended to those born outside Canada with at least one Canadian parent who has lived in Canada for 1,095 non-consecutive days.

That brings up several other questions. How is that going to be regulated? Who is going to oversee it to make sure that criteria is met?

We know that the immigration system is at a breaking point. In Regina—Lewvan, we have a very diverse community, and I would say that about 80% of the cases in our office have something to do with the IRCC. Are the Liberals going to hire more people to ensure that this criteria is met? Who is going to take on the extra bureaucracy to ensure that the criteria laid out in this piece of legislation is met? Perhaps a member from across the aisle could answer that for us as well.

We know there are long wait times at the IRCC. Is this going to add more to those wait times for people who have been waiting years sometimes to get answers from the IRCC? As my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake mentioned, this bill would put in place a two-tier system where some people who have been waiting for years and years for an answer from IRCC would be queue-jumped by people who would be given citizenship without some of the criteria we have outlined.

There is the conversation about what the language criteria would look like. That is something else that is not in this bill.

Also, there is no criminal record check for people who are going to become Canadian citizens. Is that something this House is prepared to move forward with? Do we not want to know if the people who are becoming Canadian citizens have a criminal record? That really has to be delved into at the committee level as well.

These are all pretty understandable questions, and questions that people would have if I were to be in support of this legislation. Have the Liberals asked those questions? Have they, on our behalf, made sure that those checks and balances have been taken into consideration?

I really would like a member of the Liberal Party to stand up and talk about the consultations with provincial immigration ministers about this piece of legislation. Was consultation done showing that the policy put forward is something the provinces agree with? As in my remarks earlier, a lot of these programs that may be accessed fall into provincial jurisdiction, and there is a lot more burden on them. Health care would for sure be one of them. Are people going to come back for our health care system if they have Canadian citizenship? I do not know the answer to that. Have the Liberals thought of that potential strain on the system? Are more people who have citizenship going to come back to Canada to access education? That is another question that would be asked.

The question I have is, what is the total number of people? I think I have heard that it is around 115,000. Has that grown over the last couple of years? Is it more or less? When it comes to our systems, that really needs to be answered.

Do not only take it from me. These are questions that lots of other people are asking as well. Someone who has a much broader knowledge of the immigration system than me, Sergio Karas, principal of Karas Immigration Law Professional Corporation, said in 2024:

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.

It is not just me asking these questions; there are lots of other people who have similar concerns about this piece of legislation. Another person I would like to put on the record is Krisha Dhaliwal, Canadian immigration and citizenship lawyer: “At this point, 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.” I mentioned that earlier. Who is going to be the arbitrator of that? Who is going to make sure that criteria has been followed, and how robust will that be? Those are some of the questions we would like answered at the committee level.

I think this bill does something that we as Conservatives take very seriously and puts into question the value of Canadian citizenship. In other countries, it is not the case that people can have next-generation citizenship. A lot of our peer countries have much different criteria for their citizenship, and we should look at best practices around the world to see what they do and how they make sure their citizenship is valued. This is why we have those questions.

As I said, Canada is a beautiful, welcoming country, but we have questions about the criteria and what this legislation would look like. It would put a strain on the system and on our provincial partners as well.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back after some time with family and in our own ridings. It is wonderful to see everybody.

Our Canadian identity is rooted in our shared values and our deep connection to this country. With our Canadian citizenship, we are granted rights and responsibilities. Our Canadian citizenship guarantees fundamental freedoms, such as conscience and expression. It ensures democratic rights, mobility rights and legal protections. Citizenship is not just about the rights that we inherit. It is also about the responsibilities we accept, such as respecting the laws of this land, contributing to our communities and upholding the values that make Canada strong and free.

As members of Parliament, it is our duty to strengthen and uphold the value of Canadian citizenship, to ensure that it remains a privilege earned through a genuine connection to the country, which in turn fosters a lasting commitment to Canada. Unfortunately, Bill C-3, in its current form, would not safeguard or strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. In fact, by creating an endless chain of citizenship passed down without meaningful connection, it would risk devaluing what it means to be Canadian.

To be clear, granting Canadian citizenship to adopted children of Canadian citizens born abroad is a positive step. It would ensure that adopted children would be treated as equal to biological children, as they should be. That is a principle I have been quite vocal on. Colleagues in the House who served in the previous Parliament will recall that I put forward a bill to ensure equal access to EI and parental leave for adoptive and intended parents. It is an inequity that unfortunately remains unresolved as the government continues to drag its feet on the issue.

Likewise, restoring citizenship to lost Canadians is a necessary correction. These are individuals with deep, undeniable connections to the country, and many of them were raised in Canada. They went to school here, worked here, paid taxes here and built lives here. Because they failed to apply to retain their citizenship before the age of 28, their citizenship was stripped away. In many cases, they did not even know it happened, as the requirement was never properly communicated.

When the previous Conservative government repealed that rule in 2009, a small group born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, were left behind. By any reasonable measure, these individuals are Canadians, and this should be corrected. A previous Conservative bill from the other place sought to do exactly that. It was a targeted, measured solution to restore citizenship to lost Canadians.

Rather than pass that bill, the Liberal government delayed it. It then introduced a flawed and far broader bill, Bill C-71, which has now been recycled and presented as Bill C-3 in this Parliament. Bill C-3, in its current form, would reopen the door to Canadians of convenience. It would create a pathway for unlimited, multi-generational citizenship to individuals with no meaningful connection to Canada.

It would do this by removing the first-generation limit and replacing it with an incredibly weak substantial connection test. The first-generation limit was a safeguard that was introduced by the previous Conservative government. It ensured that citizenship could not be endlessly passed down to generations born and living outside of Canada with no real ties to the country.

This policy was not introduced without reason. It followed the 2006 Lebanon crisis, when thousands of people with little or no connection to Canada suddenly claimed citizenship in order to be evacuated. That effort cost taxpayers $94 million, not including the other benefits that were accessed afterwards. Most of the evacuated returned to Lebanon shortly after. They had no lasting ties to Canada.

That incident raised serious concerns and legitimate questions about the integrity of our citizenship and what responsibilities the Government of Canada should uphold. The first-generation limit was a reasonable and necessary measure to address the issue of Canadians of convenience. It ensured that those inheriting Canadian citizenship have close ties to Canada that are not far removed. It helps prevent people from claiming the rights and privileges of citizenship without accepting its responsibilities.

Significant ties to Canada can show a strong connection to our country, but the bill's requirement of just 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada before the child's birth weakens the guarantee of a strong connection. Under this change, families can live outside Canada for generations and still pass on citizenship as long as the parent has spent about three years in Canada at some point. This so-called substantial connection is not substantial at all. It also does not require a criminal background check for those claiming citizenship, opening the door for dangerous individuals to gain it automatically. This policy change devalues the significance of Canadian citizenship.

Let us not ignore the fact that the bill creates a two-tier immigration system. On one side, there will be foreign-born individuals who have never lived in Canada, and who may have no intention of living in Canada or contributing to our country, yet they could gain citizenship simply because a parent spent a few months here and there in Canada years ago.

On the other side, there are hard-working newcomers, who actually live and work in Canada, who face strict requirements. They must follow timelines, meet residency rules, and pass language and knowledge tests. They certainly must pass a security assessment, which we all know can be quite a lengthy process. They must prove their commitment to Canadian society before they can become citizens.

This proposed policy change is unfair. It is chain migration without merit. It is a two-tier immigration system, where those who have no attachment to Canada would gain the same rights as those who worked hard to earn their citizenship. This undermines the value of citizenship and the efforts of genuine immigrants.

Another major concern is that we have no clear idea how many people would become eligible under this policy change. A massive influx of new citizens would put significant strain on government resources and come at a cost to Canadian taxpayers. The government has not done a clear cost analysis on this policy. What impact would this have on our already strained social services? Canadians are rightly frustrated that public services, such as health care, pensions and housing, could be further stretched by a surge of new citizens living abroad who have never contributed to our country, not to mention the extra workload that this would create for government departments processing citizenship applications. This would once again disadvantage those applying to Canada who have shown a genuine and legitimate connection to this country.

Canadian citizenship must be fair, secure and meaningful. It should be earned through genuine connection, responsibility and respect for our country. Becoming a Canadian citizen means more than just receiving rights and privileges. It requires a deep commitment to Canada's future and the responsibilities that come with citizenship.

As parliamentarians, we must oppose policies that cheapen the value of our citizenship. We must stand firm for integrity, security and responsible immigration policies. While the bill includes some important elements, like restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and ensuring equal treatment for adopted children, it is neither a measured nor a targeted policy. Instead, it opens the door wide open for our citizenship to be abused as a citizenship of convenience. It is reckless. The lack of a required security screening is deeply concerning. The potential cost to taxpayers is significant, and the added strain on an already overstretched government's resources and public programs is alarming.

This bill requires significant amendments, yet it is hard to believe that will happen given the government has failed to make these necessary changes before reintroducing it this Parliament. The integrity of our Canadian citizenship and our national identity cannot be taken lightly. As elected members of the House, it is our responsibility to uphold and strengthen what it means to be a Canadian citizen.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the need to present a new piece of legislation, but this is not a new piece; it is a cut and paste of the old piece. The member knows very well that this has gone through committee in the past, with both Bill C-71 and the Senate bill, Bill S-245. The member also knows very well that for us to consider legislation to fix what he is saying and address the issue of the court ruling, we need to fix this legislation.

With the way it is written, it is bad legislation. It needs to be fixed because we cannot give citizenship out in perpetuity with the excuse that somehow we have to address a court decision. Yes, there is a court decision, but even more important now is to ensure that we put in place a piece of legislation that would resolve the very issues we are talking about here today.