Bill C-3

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

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

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging that we are gathering on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

It is a privilege to stand here this morning, as Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, to present Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2025. This bill is an important opportunity to address issues in Canada's citizenship legislation with the intention of restoring and providing access to citizenship for those who have been impacted. We often refer to this group as “lost Canadians”, those people who lost or were denied citizenship status because of provisions in previous legislation that we would now consider outdated. The term “lost Canadians” can also be used to describe people who are not Canadian citizens today because they are excluded by the first-generation rule.

Although this bill was introduced as Bill C-71 in the previous session, Parliament did not complete its review before the end of the session. As a result, this is the reintroduction of a bill that had been introduced and on which debate had started. The previous government put in place—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the audio on the English channel.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am going to ask and look to members regarding whether their audio is working correctly while I speak.

I will now speak in French to make sure they can hear.

The hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, now that we have clearly identified that the audio is working in both languages, I appreciate this historic opportunity to stand today and really make right what is a wrong.

I will continue by saying that this bill was already introduced in the last Parliament but did not go through all the stages. The previous government put in place interim measures to allow lost Canadians affected by the first-generation rule limit to be offered a discretionary grant of citizenship until corrective legislation was passed.

The bill I am introducing today is substantively the same as Bill C-71 to ensure continuity. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the House and in committee as we resume our work.

As my colleagues may already be aware, there are three ways to become a Canadian citizen: by being born in Canada, by going through the naturalization process after immigrating from another country or by passing it on to one's children. Each of these ways of becoming Canadian has its own story.

Regardless of a person's path to citizenship, we all share a common bond: our commitment to the rights, responsibilities and shared values that define life in Canada. We live in a country that supports human rights, equality and respect for all people. The integrity of our values depends on how we extend them, especially in areas like citizenship by descent, where issues persist for some families due to decisions made decades ago.

Canada's history has been shaped by generations of people who chose to pursue their dreams and raise their families here, including many who, like my own family in Nova Scotia and many who arrived through Pier 21 in Halifax, arrived from abroad seeking opportunity and built a new life through hard work and perseverance.

To understand the challenge we face, it is important to take a moment to review the history of Canadian citizenship law.

The first Canadian Citizenship Act was enacted in 1947. At that time, certain provisions existed that could prevent individuals from obtaining citizenship or cause them to lose it even if they had strong ties to Canada. These outdated provisions have gradually been amended or repealed over time, most notably with the introduction of a new Citizenship Act in 1977.

The individuals affected by these provisions have come to be known as “lost Canadians”. Amendments made to the Citizenship Act in 2009 and 2015 resolved the majority of these older cases. Since 2009, approximately 20,000 people have contacted our department and received a certificate of Canadian citizenship thanks to those amendments.

Over the decades, changes to citizenship laws have meant that Canadians could pass citizenship on to their children and grandchildren born abroad, but only if certain conditions were met. After the new Citizenship Act came into force in 1977, children born outside Canada to a Canadian parent who was also born abroad had to make a formal application before the age of 28 to retain their citizenship. If they did not apply or if their application was refused, they lost it.

Some people were unaware of this requirement. Some made their lives in Canada without realizing that they risked becoming a new group of lost Canadians. My department previously received about 35 to 40 applications each year to remedy the status of people affected by this former rule. These numbers have been decreasing in recent years.

However, the 2009 legislative update that addressed most of the lost Canadian cases also introduced a new rule. Citizenship by descent was restricted to only the first generation of children born outside Canada, meaning that children born to Canadian citizens who were themselves born abroad would no longer automatically be citizens. This first-generation limit has since been challenged in court, which is why I am here today.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that key provisions of the first-generation rule were unconstitutional. Its decision reminds us that all Canadian families must be treated fairly, no matter where their children are born, and that Canadians with a genuine connection to Canada should have the freedom to move abroad, start a family and then return without losing their right to pass on their Canadian identity and citizenship. The decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reflects what many advocates have been saying for a long time: that some people are unacceptably excluded from citizenship by outdated or overly restrictive definitions. We need to approach this issue in a thoughtful and inclusive way.

There remains a very small, specific group of Canadians still affected by the old 28-year age requirement: those born outside Canada in the second or subsequent generation between 1977 and 1981 who had reached the age of 28 and lost their citizenship before the 2009 amendment came into force.

Challenges faced by lost Canadians have been thoughtfully raised in this House and other places. For example, back in 2022, Senator Yonah Martin introduced a Senate public bill, Bill S-245, to address the age 28 issue. Her work was supported by those personally affected by the bill, by legal scholars and by policy-makers across the political spectrum. Bill S-245 was then amended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to provide access to citizenship by descent beyond the first generation for those who can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada.

This is where our new bill, Bill C-3, picks up. It retains many elements of the committee's suggested improvements and reflects the input of experts and community voices.

I want to thank the many advocates who testified and gave their time and attention to help us update our citizenship law.

Bill C-3 proposes to restore Canadian citizenship to those who have lost it because of the now repealed age 28 rule. It would give Canadian citizenship to those born outside Canada to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generation before the new law comes into force. It would allow anyone adopted abroad by a Canadian parent, beyond the first generation, before this new law comes into force, to access the direct granting of citizenship for adopted persons.

Going forward, the bill would permit access to citizenship beyond the first generation, as long as the Canadian parent demonstrates a substantial connection to Canada. That substantial connection will be measured by physical presence in Canada. In order to pass down their Canadian citizenship, the Canadian parent must have spent three years in total in this country, or 1,095 days cumulatively, but not necessarily consecutively, before the birth of their child.

Bill C-3 would also allow Canadian adoptive parents born outside Canada to access a grant of citizenship for their children adopted abroad if they meet the same substantial connection criteria. If the adoptive parent was physically present in Canada for three years in total prior to the adoption, their child can access the adoption grant of citizenship. Of course, they would have to apply as well.

We recognize that citizenship cannot and should not be imposed on people who do not wish to hold it, so these choices must remain accessible, humane and free of bureaucratic burden, especially for those navigating complex international legal systems. In many countries, dual citizenship is not permitted in certain jobs, including government, military and national security positions. In some countries, having citizenship in another country can present legal, professional or other barriers, including restricting access to benefits. That is why the bill would also provide access to the same simplified renunciation process as the one established in 2009.

If this bill is adopted, we are committed to fully implementing the proposed amendments without delay. This legislative update is not only necessary, it is urgent. It is urgent because families have waited far too long to be recognized as Canadians under the law. They waited while the courts deliberated. They waited while governments debated. Today, let us end their wait.

As we respond to the ruling that the provision is unconstitutional and to decades of heartfelt calls for justice, we have an opportunity to reaffirm that Canadian citizenship is not only a legal status but a living expression of our shared values. I invite all members of the House to move the legislation forward, and I welcome constructive dialogue on any refinements that are needed, both here in the House and as we advance to the committee stage.

I very much look forward to working across party lines to see the bill enacted as speedily as possible. As I said, many people have been waiting. Together we can ensure that the Citizenship Act reflects the spirit of Canadian identity.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke about the responsibilities of Canadian citizens, but those responsibilities include paying taxes to pay for services such as health care. The bill goes well beyond closing a loophole for a small group of people, which previous Conservative legislation and Conservatives supported.

By contrast, the PBO estimated that the bill would grant citizenship to over 100,000 people in five years. There are no security vetting requirements for persons who fall under the bill, and the bill contains no consecutive residency requirements. Failing that, the bill contains no requirements for people without consecutive residency for any mechanism such as, let us say, paying taxes.

Why would the minister, knowing all the testimony that happened in the last Parliament on this particular issue, continue to devalue Canadian citizenship in this way?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, allow me, first of all, as we start to debate on the bill, to take a moment to thank again the stakeholders across the country, including Don Chapman, who is the head of the lost Canadian website and who has been a tireless advocate for this.

Let me also clarify the record. I look forward to the committee study on this, but the majority of lost Canadian cases were remedied by the legislative amendments that were implemented in 2009 and 2015, with approximately 20,000 people at the time acquiring citizenship.

We know from history that not everyone is going to apply through this. We are here again to right a wrong. There is a constitutional issue in front of us, leaving us with no choice but to enact legislation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has held the important and critical position of immigration minister for over a month now.

Quebec is experiencing major issues, including with the temporary foreign worker program, and the federal government has been dragging its feet for a long time.

Today, I am very pleased to see Bill C-3 has been introduced. It is a good bill, which we were in favour of during the previous Parliament.

However, on the minister's list of priorities, can we know when Quebec and Canadian businesses will have reassurances about the fact that they are currently having to let go of employees who have become part of the company and the community, because the federal government has been dragging its feet on this issue?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to this bill to amend the Citizenship Act. I am here to say that it is very important to work on getting this bill through committee and the House.

I look forward to the co‑operation of all parliamentarians who are working in the House to move this bill forward.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for tabling this bill. A similar bill was before the last Parliament, and the Conservatives filibustered the House, preventing it from getting to third reading, prompting the courts to yet again extend another extension to get the law passed so that Canada's immigration Citizenship Act would be charter-compliant.

What are the minister's thoughts about the Conservatives' tactics when they first took away lost Canadians' rights to have citizenship passed on to their children, then filibustered it in the last Parliament and are now speaking against it once again?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, those are valid points. As I stated already, I do look forward to the co-operation of all parties in the House.

It is important to remind members, as well as viewers, who have really been waiting for this for years, that the reason we are here today is that sections of this were declared unconstitutional by the Ontario Supreme Court on December 19, 2023, and Parliament has had x amount of time to remedy this. We were not able to move it forward in the last session, unfortunately, because of various things, including the election, so I am here again to present the bill in order to move it forward.

What we have done in this bill is to strike a balance by protecting the value of citizenship going forward and limiting it to those whose parent has a substantial connection to Canada. If we do not do anything, then we risk losing that, and anybody could potentially apply. This is a good legislation, and I very much look forward to all colleagues working with us to advance this.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the minister to continue.

The minister talked about a Supreme Court decision that obligates the government to take a specific action. Many of us have participated in citizenship courts. We all have an appreciation of the true value of being able to travel in Canada or around the world with a Canadian passport, how meaningful that is and the types of rights we have as Canadian citizens. This is indeed important legislation, and it is a direct response to a court decision.

I very much appreciate the manner in which the minister opened the legislation up for potential amendments and to listen to what members might have to say. Would she like to provide further thoughts on how important it is?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am looking forward to constructive dialogue from all parties, whether it is today or in committee.

We are taking the responsible step of approaching the court decision by creating a framework to citizenship by descent, including creating the need to demonstrate a strong connection to Canada.

I am very much looking forward to July 1, because on July 1, traditionally, for the last many years and decades, I go to citizenship ceremonies. This year, it will be very special because I will again be at Pier 21, which is where over a million immigrants entered Canada between 1928 and 1971. This legislation would directly affect—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the minister to continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that a lot of new immigrants have when coming to this country is getting through security screening. Those of us who process files in our offices know they can take up to a year or even longer to get through this security screening process. I would note that in the bill, there is no proposal for those who are going to be given citizenship to have any kind of security screening at all. I am wondering if the minister can comment on how it makes any sense to grant citizenship to people without even checking to see if they have committed or have been convicted of serious crimes.

There is nothing like that in the legislation, and I wonder what the minister thinks of that.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am going to reiterate that the reason we are here today is a decision made by a court that rendered these provisions unconstitutional. If we do absolutely nothing, it will put Canadians at risk, and it would really be a tragedy for those who have been waiting for years to have their citizenship recognized.

I very much look forward to members discussing and debating this and receiving any amendments or constructive advice.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, the minister, for her bill. The Bloc Québécois has already said that we will vote in favour of this bill, so she does not have to work very hard to convince us.

However, my colleague from Drummond asked her a question that we did not get an answer to. I worked with the minister on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the last Parliament, so I know how thorough she is. I know that she must be very eager to respond.

I would therefore ask the minister to respond to my colleague from Drummond. Can we count on her to solve the other immigration issues, especially when it comes to workers who are integrated, who have a job and who are learning the language?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague. We worked together on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I am here to work on immigration issues with him and all the members of his team.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first speech in the new Parliament, I just want to take a moment to thank the citizens of Saskatoon West for once again returning me to Ottawa as their MP.

Of course at the same time, I want to thank some of those who helped me. I start with my family. We all know we cannot succeed in this place without our family behind us. I want to thank my wife, Cheryl; my sons, Kyle and Eric; and my aging parents, Alvin and Irene Redekopp, who were not able to help as much this time, but they are always behind me in spirit.

I had a core campaign team of Steve, Daniel, Jared, Marian, Lisa, Carol, Jason, Deb and Judy, and a core door knocking team of Ope, Yash, Sutter, Rito, Effay and Doug. I want to thank all volunteers, donors and everybody who helped.

I will continue to do my very best to represent Saskatoon West here in this place and bring the voices of Saskatoon here to Ottawa.

I will now talk about Bill C-3. It is recycled legislation, as the minister just pointed out, which was tabled as Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament. Actually, Bill C-71 was retread legislation of Bill S-245, a private member's bill that was heavily amended by the government with the help of the former party that used to exist in this place, called the New Democratic Party. The Conservatives opposed the bill then, and we continue to have significant issues with the bill.

There are three major parts to the bill. The first is citizenship by descent, the second is a provision for adopted children, and the third is fixing a problem with lost Canadians, which is an issue in the current legislation.

Conservatives cannot support the bill in its current form, and the main reason is the citizenship by descent. The bill would dilute the integrity of Canadian citizenship by automatically extending it to multiple generations born abroad with only a minimal connection to Canada. This is a classic Liberal solution to a problem. We have a problem, as the minister pointed out, and I will speak about a court case in a bit, and there are reasons this needs to be done, but the fix the Liberals came up with is a poor one. It is a bad one. It would not really solve the problem in an adequate way.

Conservatives will introduce amendments at committee. As Andrew Griffith from Policy Options said, “Canadian citizenship is a precious gift. At the committee stage, members of Parliament must be able to fulsomely examine the implications of an open-ended residency requirement”, and we will do that.

I first want to speak about citizenship by descent, why it is problematic, and why we will vote against. For some background, how did we get here? Prior to 2009, it was possible for Canadian citizens to pass on their citizenship to endless generations born outside Canada. A person did not need to have much of a connection to Canada; they could have never lived in Canada but yet could pass on citizenship over and over, generation after generation.

Something happened in the mid-2000s, a crisis in Lebanon, and many Lebanese Canadians were concerned about their safety and the situation going on in Beirut, so they made sure they passed their citizenship on to their children. When things got really, really difficult in Beirut, they called on the Canadian government to rescue them. In 2006, the Canadian government spent $94 million bringing about 15,000 Lebanese Canadians to Canada. They were Canadian citizens, but for the most part they had rarely or never lived in Canada. These people benefited from citizenship with minimal connection to Canada, and they became known as the “Canadians of convenience”.

Interestingly, what happened is that a lot of these people were rescued from Beirut, came to Canada for a bit, but many of them went right back to Lebanon, and that was it for their connection to Canada, but it cost Canadian taxpayers $94 million. This led to a bill by the Harper government to create what was known as the first-generation rule.

After 2009, the rule changed so a citizen born outside of Canada could pass their citizenship to their child born outside of Canada for one generation, but someone from the next generation born outside of Canada was not automatically a citizen. That was called the first-generation limit, and the bill now would effectively abolish that rule and allow people to confer citizenship on their children generation after generation for one measly requirement of spending 1095 days in Canada, which I will talk about a little more. All someone would need to do to meet the requirements is live a few years in Canada.

Why are we doing this now? In 2023, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the first-generation rule was unconstitutional, so the Liberal government, in its great wisdom, chose not to appeal it but to just accept that ruling. It could have appealed it to a higher court, and it chose not to; it committed to changing the law.

The court did say, though, that it was reasonable to apply a substantial connection test. It understood that we cannot just give citizenship out like candy; there has to be some sort of a connection to Canada. The court said that if we put in some sort of a substantial connection test, that would be okay according to the law.

The Liberal government chose to create a substantial connection test that is not substantial at all. The test is 1,095 days, which is about three years. People would have to spend that much time in Canada prior to the birth of a child. It is not consecutive days; it could be a month here, a month there, and three years is very weak. The government would not even know, really, if people have been in Canada for that time. There would be an affidavit that a person would sign. It is a very weak way to commit to being a Canadian citizen and then to confer that citizenship onto children. It is not a real test of commitment, because the days do not have to be consecutive.

The other issue is that there would be no criminal background check at all. Once again, we could be passing on citizenship to children who potentially could have serious convictions or a criminal background, but we would not know because we would not even check. When we have newcomers coming to our country, the government puts a lot of effort into checking the security background of those people, and it can take up to a year or longer for newcomers to get processed through security.

Andrew Griffith, from Policy Options, said:

To remedy the issue, Bill C-71 [speaking about the previous legislation] uses residency as the “substantial connection test.”

However, the new standard in Bill C-71, which requires a foreign-born Canadian parent to have spent a total of 1,095 days in Canada...differs significantly from what is required of new Canadians.

...the government has failed to fully consider the implications of such an open-ended condition.

I might note that in the U.S., people can confer citizenship only to the first generation. They have to have at least five years in the U.S., with two of those years being after the age of 14, and there is also very strict screening. In the U.K., it is only the first generation that can be admitted. There are some very strict rules in our partner countries that the Liberal government has chosen not to enforce, creating an extremely weak connection test.

This brings up a question: What does it mean to be a citizen? I believe that the bill cheapens that. There is an organization called the Institute for Canadian Citizenship. It does great work on this subject of citizenship and helps a lot of newcomers in our country. Daniel Bernhard, who is the CEO, said this:

The sense of belonging is very powerful. If people don't consider Canada to be their society, then they won't dedicate themselves to it, or get involved in our culture and contribute their utmost to making our society a success. That's a danger of concern to all of us.

We must roll up our sleeves to restore the value of being Canadian.

Citizenship is a connection to one's home country. It is being there for one's country in times that are good and bad. It is enjoying the peace of Canada, proudly participating in wars when necessary and being available for keeping the peace at other times. Also, people need to understand the current situation in our country. They need to live here to understand how things are and some of the issues we have right now in our country, with an epidemic of crime; expensive and unavailable housing; difficulties in health care, including trying to find doctors and waiting lists; high taxes; and a drug crisis, including fentanyl, in our country right now. People do not know that if they are living in another country.

It is also important to understand our history and be proud of our accomplishments, such as being proud of our sports teams, even though some people may cheer for sports teams outside of Canada. Nobody does that, right? We need to be proud of our teams and of the beauty in our country. We need to believe in our Canadian values and norms: democracy, equality and not engaging in religious squabbles and wars. Many people come to our country from other countries, and they bring their culture, food and all the good parts of their countries. Often, they are escaping bad situations, including war and fighting. We do not need to bring those wars to Canada; we can bring the good parts and build a country and a society that works for us here.

People who come here enjoy our social safety net, but it is so important that they participate by paying taxes in order to enjoy that. It is something that Canada is proud of; we take great care of our people, but there is a cost for that. It is very unfair when people who have never had any participation in our tax system then expect to receive benefits from it.

Canadians proudly display our Canadian flag on Canada Day and, of course, are allowed to vote in elections to decide governments.

In 2010, one of our best immigration ministers ever, Jason Kenney, said the following:

Citizenship is about far more than a right to carry a passport or to vote. It defines who we are as Canadians, including our mutual responsibilities to one another and a shared commitment to the values that are rooted in our history, like freedom, unity and loyalty. That is why we must protect the values of Canadian citizenship and must take steps against those who would cheapen it.

I think the legislation would actually cheapen it. The Liberals have worked hard to cheapen what it means to be a Canadian citizen. I point to the comments made by the previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, about Canada being a postnational country and about how citizenship and being Canada does not mean much other than the borders around us.

We just have to look at the passport to see that. The way the Liberal government changed the passport to take away all the symbols that mean anything and replace them with meaningless pictures and things that do not mean anything and do not provide any sense of what it means to be Canadian is just a small example of the way the government has been moving to cheapen citizenship. I believe that the bill would just add further to that.

One of the big concerns that I have is also the uncontrolled citizenship expansion that would be allowed through the bill. Ken Nickel-Lane, who is an immigration consultant, said in the Times of India, “This announcement, at least on initial reading looks like it will open up the chain of citizenship without end”. He is completely correct about that.

When the issue under the previous legislation was at immigration committee in the previous Parliament, we asked many questions to IRCC department officials about how many people would receive citizenship under the provisions. They could not answer the question. They would not answer the question. We asked repeatedly, and we asked in many different ways. They never answered the question.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer actually did a study on the bill, on Bill C-71 in the last Parliament, and estimated that it would create at least 115,000 new citizens in the first five years, most of them living abroad. Of course, that number could then double every generation, so we could end up with a lot of new citizens who really have minimal connection to Canada and just do not ever actually participate in anything in Canada. Andrew Griffith from Policy Options said, “There are an estimated four million Canadians living outside Canada, [and] about half of them were born abroad.”

We have to be very careful that we do not add to our burdens by giving citizenship to people who do not participate in Canada at all. It is just no surprise the government cannot answer questions about numbers. People who were here last week might recall that when we were questioning the minister on the estimates, we asked all kinds of questions about really key marquee policy items.

One of the marquee policies of the Liberal government is to reduce non-permanent residents. I was asking the minister about these numbers, and she did not have any clue what they were. Another marquee policy is reducing the population this year. The overall population is projected by the government to drop by half a million people, but it has not dropped at all yet, and yet the minister seemed to have no knowledge of that. Therefore it does not surprise me that the minister and the department have no clue how many people the legislation would impact. I think that is really to know how it would impact Canada.

Another issue that goes along with that is the cost. How much would it cost taxpayers to have the legislation? Again, IRCC officials had no clue; they did not have an answer to that. Apparently they had not looked into it at all, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer did and estimated it would be about $21 million in admin costs over five years. That would be to process additional claims for citizenship, passports and applicants to social programs.

By the way, if 115,000 people started getting old age security at age 65, if these people actually came to live in Canada and collected old age security, that would be a billion dollars a year. The potential for cost to the Canadian taxpayer is very, very huge here. We cannot underestimate that.

Andrew Griffith said, “IRCC needs to determine and share estimates for the approximate number of new citizens expected under the change, along with the incremental workload and resources that are required before the bill goes before committee.” I would echo that. We need to know those numbers so we can properly study the bill.

To summarize citizenship by descent, it would remove the first-generation limit and allows citizenship to be conferred generation after generation with a simple, weak, “substantial connection” test of 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada. There would be no criminal background check at all required with this. For those reasons, we cannot support it.

There is a second provision in the bill, and that is the provision for adopted children. Currently, if a person adopts a child from abroad, once the adoption is completed, they have to go through the process of applying for permanent residency for them, just like anyone else would, and it takes a long time. There are a lot of costs involved, legal costs, and it can be a stressful time for a new family. The bill would essentially treat an adopted child from abroad as though they were born in Canada, so once the adoption is finalized, that child would be given Canadian citizenship. We support that. We support the equal treatment of adopted children. We have done that in the past, and we will continue to support that. It makes sense. It is a common-sense change, so parents would not be penalized for adopting children from overseas and those children could be treated in the same manner as they would be if they were born in Canada. I spoke to this in the previous Parliament when it came up at committee. The chair well knows that we supported it, and we would support this provision if it were by itself.

The third part of this legislation is on restoring lost Canadians. This part is also reasonable, and when it came to committee, we were supportive of it. The easiest way to understand it is that immigration and citizenship law is very complicated. When changes are made over the years, sometimes there are unintended consequences, which is what happened here. There was a group of people born within a four-year stretch, from I believe 1977 to 1981, who had to apply for citizenship by the age of 28, and if they did not, they lost it, which was never the intention of the law. It was just a glitch that ended up there because of the way the laws were amended over the years, so this does need to be fixed, because nobody should lose their citizenship. In fact, Senator Yonah Martin brought this forward in Bill S-245, and she said:

Many of these individuals were raised in Canada from a young age. Though they were born abroad, some came to Canada at a young age, as infants, in some cases. They went to school in Canada. They raised their families in Canada. They worked and paid taxes in Canada, and yet, they turned 28 without knowing that their citizenship would be stripped from them because of the change in policy [in] 1977 that required Canadians...to apply to retain their citizenship when they turned 28.

That is the essence of what this piece of the bill would do. It would fix a problem that came about because of unintended consequences. The bill that was brought in by Senator Martin was intended to just fix this issue, because many had tried to fix it, but nobody succeeded. Unfortunately, when it came to committee, the Liberal government, with the help of the former party that used to exist in this place, the New Democrats, actually ganged up on Senator Martin's private member's bill and made substantial changes to it to incorporate things such as citizenship by descent. It was a very unfair thing to have a private member's bill commandeered by the government, with the help of NDP members, yet that is what happened, so that bill did not make it forward. It is a reminder to the House that we need to respect certain things, and private member's bills are something that really need to be respected.

To summarize, there are elements of the bill that we support, as I mentioned. We support the elements dealing with adoption and with lost Canadians, but we cannot support citizenship by descent for endless generations. We cannot allow endless generations to have a very weak connection to Canada and still get their citizenship conferred. We cannot stand by and not have a background check, and we have to be very careful that we do not create new unintended consequences, as has happened in the past.

I must remind everyone that the Liberals broke our immigration system. For years, Canadians agreed on immigration. We brought in skilled labour to fill gaps in our labour force. We helped displaced and poorly treated people from all over the world find a new home in Canada. We had a balanced, reasonable and fair policy for immigrants, which was good for our economy and it was good for Canada, but then the Liberals blew it up. They opened the floodgates. They brought in millions of people and jammed up the bureaucracy so that files now take years to process, and having too many cases led to mistakes. Last year, a father and son were given a security clearance even though there was a video from 2015 that showed them violently participating in things, and they were actually planning a terror plot. Mistakes happened because of jammed up systems.

Let us be clear that this is not the fault of newcomers to our country. Clearly, it is the fault of the government. Immigrants were just doing what the Liberal government asked them to do. They had no idea they were coming to a country that was not prepared for them. This left all Canadians dealing with housing shortages, sky-high job shortages, health care problems, etc. Conservatives believe in strong, fair immigration citizenship rules that respect—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is time for questions and comments.

The hon. government deputy House leader.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had lots of opportunities to work with the member opposite on this specific legislation in the House during the last Parliament.

I remember when we were able to pass it and commit it to families across Canada, some of whom were our constituents. We told them that we were committed to making sure that we were not going to have their children lose their citizenship and that they were not going to be part of the list of lost Canadians.

I remember, if my memory serves me correctly, the member opposite supported this. What changed?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is speaking about lost Canadians and the people who should not lose their citizenship. We supported that. I supported that in the previous Parliament. That was the whole purpose of the senator's Bill S-245. It was to fix that problem.

That was a simple bill that came forward. Then that member and her party, along with members of the NDP, hijacked that private member's bill, adding a whole bunch of things. They changed it far beyond what was originally intended. In fact, the purpose of making it really simple and easy to digest, about the lost Canadians, was to actually get it through the process, because many had failed before.

That was the whole point. It was to make it simple and get it through, yet that member and the Liberal government complicated it, added to it, hijacked the bill and made it something that was bad for Canadians, something that we could not support.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, I wish you could take part in this debate. That is the last time I will say it.

I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I was obviously already somewhat familiar with his position on the matter, since I also worked on Bill S‑245 and Bill C‑71. Right now, we are working on Bill C‑3. We have been working on this issue for years, so I think we all know where everyone stands.

Does my colleague agree with me that the bill should be sent to committee quickly? When the time comes to send it to committee, it will need to be considered quickly, as well as thoroughly, of course. We need to move on.

Does the member believe, as I do, that the immigration system is completely dysfunctional right now? We need only think of the asylum system, work permits and temporary foreign workers. Should we not be dealing with other urgent issues involving the immigration system? We have known for 10 years how people will vote on this bill.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I do great work together at the committee, and I hope to continue that.

We have to be careful in ramming things through this place. He is not wrong. We do need to deal with this issue. We need to get the amendments that we want out. We need to speak about it and have that debate, yet I hesitate to agree to push it through quickly because that is how mistakes get made. This bill has potential long-term implications for Canadians with the ability to confer citizenship generation after generation. I do believe we need to give it its due consideration.

As the member pointed out, we have many other major issues. The immigration system is badly broken, with many problems that need to be examined. I can certainly imagine that the immigration committee is going to be very consumed with all kinds of issues because of the broken system that the Liberals created.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's very informative speech this morning.

One of the things I found a little shocking, and I am sure most Canadians would like to know a bit more about, is the opening up of our citizenship for people coming in, not having a security background check, and the implications that could have to our already burgeoning and struggling justice system.

What, if any, amendments could be brought forward to tighten up that part of the bill for Canadians going forward?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone in the chamber knows, Canada is suffering from an increase in crime because of the way the Liberal government changed the laws, particularly around bail, and weakened statutes, along with other ways that have made it easier for criminals to stay out of jail.

We have to be very careful about crime and to not do anything to potentially increase it. That is why I am very concerned that this bill has no provision for any kind of security check on the new citizenship that it would create. That does not make any sense. It is not the same standard that we apply to others who are given citizenship.

We need to be extremely cautious and careful about not checking backgrounds and not checking for convictions and things like that. It is very important to do that and make those changes in the bill.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the private member's bill from Senator Yonah Martin. Of course, that bill was amended, which Conservatives opposed and filibustered at committee.

The government then tabled Bill C-71, to which the Conservatives said it needed to be a government bill with all those changes. The government did, in fact, belatedly table Bill C-71 in the House. Conservatives then filibustered that.

We now have Bill C-3, and Conservatives are now saying they do not support it.

My question for the member is this: Why are the Conservatives so persistent in trying to prevent Canada's Citizenship Act from being charter-compliant and having the gender discrimination component within it, as it applies to lost Canadians, rectified?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are concerned about citizenship and want to make sure crazy things are not implemented into our system. That is why we take the time to look at things. We make sure that we give it proper investigation and bring in the proper experts, and that is what happened.

The member mentioned Bill C-71. That was completely under the control of the government. That had nothing to do with us. The government controlled the agenda. It could have brought it forward. It could have made changes. It could have had that implemented if it chose to. It was not able to control the calendar in a way that made any sense, and it was not able to get it done, just like so many things the Liberal government was unable to get done in the last Parliament.

I want to point out that the member, and others from the former party that used to exist in the House, were right beside the Liberals all the way along. They were helping them at every single step. That may be why they are in the position they are in today.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that was shared. I listened to it on my way to the House.

I have a twofold question.

The first is with respect to the constituents of the riding of Waterloo. I was able to interact with a constituent who was born to Canadian tax-paying citizens abroad. Her mother was travelling abroad for a Canadian company and had to have an emergency delivery, so because her child was born abroad, without that intention, the child did not have the right to Canadian citizenship. Once again, her parents were living in Canada and were Canadian taxpayers, so there is a bit of a discrepancy.

My first question would be this: Does the member agree with or respect the ruling of the courts? Does he want to ensure that the legislation is compliant with the laws and the charter of our country?

The second question is in regard to advancing the bill to committee. Does the member agree that we cannot pass amendments at second reading? The committee would have to study that legislation and send it back with improvements or suggestions, which would be the right course of action to get some work done around here.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows well the processes of the House. Obviously, it could be done at committee. That is a good thing.

We all know of unique cases that have happened. We cannot craft legislation that covers every single situation. Sometimes it works out well for people, and sometimes there is a bit more work that is required.

What is really critical, from my perspective, is that the legislation we create covers all situations. We have to make sure we do not allow bad legislation to get through that allows for loopholes such as, for example, the father and son who were given citizenship, who clearly should not have, because security checks were not properly made. Therefore, we have to make sure that the legislation we approve in the House is as solid as can be. That is why the process we are going through here in the House is so important, and what the bill will go through at committee is vital.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments that needs to be made to the bill to prevent endless chain migration, which the bill currently provides for without any sort of consecutive residency requirement, is to ensure that those who the bill applies to spend some sort of substantive length of time in Canada in a consecutive manner. The bill does not apply to that. Right now, ad infinitum, descendants could just apply for citizenship after having spent a thousand days in Canada over the course of their lifetime and then claim health care benefits.

Does the member agree that there should be a consecutive residency requirement of some nature in the bill?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree. That is one of the key things. If we look at some of the other countries, we see they have much more stringent requirements. I think we should have at least a consecutive requirement. Even three years, in my mind, would not be enough. If we look at the U.S., for example, it has a five-year requirement, and two of those years have to be after the age of 14. I think we can look to our peer countries to find many good examples of how to make a more substantial connection test, and having consecutive days is key to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that this will be the last time I give a speech on such a bill at second reading. That is a lot, considering Bill S‑245 and Bill C‑71. That brings us to Bill C‑3. I hope this will be resolved once and for all.

A few months ago, I stood in the House to speak to Bill C‑71, which was in fact a reintroduction of Bill S‑245, which sought to correct a historic wrong by granting citizenship to Canadians whose cases had slipped through the cracks. I spoke about children of Canadian parents who had been born abroad and lost their citizenship because of changes in the federal rules or for other reasons that struck me as hard to justify at the time. Bills S‑245 and C‑71 basically sought to restore citizenship to all these people who had lost their status due to the overly complex and often unjust provisions of previous Canadian laws.

This idea is taken up again in Bill C‑3, which was recently introduced by the government. In fact, Bill C‑3 incorporates all of the amendments proposed to Bill C‑71 in the previous Parliament, which sought to correct these injustices and errors in the major legislation that is the Citizenship Act.

The bill responds to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling which declared that the first-generation limit on citizenship applicable to the children of Canadians born abroad is unconstitutional. The government then had six months to amend the law. Bill C‑3 was introduced as a fallback, because Bill S‑245 and even Bill C‑71, unfortunately, could not get across the finish line. While unfortunate, it was partly due to some crass partisanship on the part of certain political parties.

In this regard, I must point out the following. In spite of my occasional differences of opinion with my colleagues from the other parties represented in the House, as members know, I try not to get caught up in that. I am not in the habit of obstructing during committee meetings. I would even say that, especially with this kind of issue, working across party lines often helps us get results. Personally, it helps me do my work even better for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean whom I have had the honour of representing in the House since 2019.

Today, I will speak not only for Quebeckers, but also for a good many Canadians whose IRCC files have been stalled for too long. As the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I want to talk about Canadian citizenship. That might seem odd coming from someone from my party, but it affects everyone here and a good many Quebeckers. I want to talk today about the people we now refer to as “lost Canadians”, those who lost their citizenship because of an often little-known but truly ridiculous provision.

According to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's estimates, there are still between 100 and 200 people who have not yet regained their citizenship. They are the last group of “lost Canadians”. Bill C‑3 corrects an oversight in the 2009 amendment to the Citizenship Act, which missed a golden opportunity to do away with the requirement for these people to apply to retain their citizenship when they turned 28. That measure in the 2009 amendment to the act was completely arbitrary and should have been removed.

At the risk of ruining the surprise, and for the sake of consistency, I will say that, since we were in favour of Bill S‑245 and Bill C‑71, we are also in favour of Bill C‑3. We believe it should be passed swiftly, but only after a thorough study. By that, I mean that we need to be efficient, but we absolutely must not pass this bill under closure. I urge all parties not to use what I feel is an undemocratic tool that most parties in the House enjoy using, depending on the Parliament and the whim of the government. I am saying that the bill should be passed swiftly, but following the usual process, meaning we should study it in committee and hear expert testimony. I will listen to amendments by members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We will study them and, as I said, rigorously analyze the bill. Afterwards, we will have discussions, but we already know what to expect, given that we have already been having these conversations in committee for many years.

We want to ensure that the scope of the legislation remains as we intend it to be. I think that, already, we can expect that there will not be many amendments, since Bill C‑3 essentially incorporates the amendments that were already proposed to Bill C‑71. If we think about it, this bill is perfectly in line with what our contemporary vision of citizenship should be. Once citizenship has been duly granted, it should never be taken away from an individual, unless it is for reasons of national security. Only a citizen can freely renounce his or her citizenship, and the government should not strip anyone of their citizenship based on a mere formality, such as the need to file to retain their citizenship by their 28th birthday.

Like all parties in the House, the Bloc Québécois supports and defends the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all are equal before the law. In fact, citizenship is an egalitarian legal status granted to all members of the same community. It confers privileges as well as duties. In this case, the Canadian government has failed in meeting its obligations to its citizens. This situation cannot be allowed to continue because citizenship must apply equally to all. This is simply a matter of principle that we are debating today. I do not believe I am alone in thinking that it is profoundly unfair that, in 2022, people can lose their citizenship for reasons that they probably do not even know exist. These provisions are from another time when there were questionable ideas about what it meant to be a citizen of Canada. Since time has not remedied the situation and since the reforms of the past have not been prescriptive enough, then politicians must weigh in.

We know the path to reclaiming Canadian citizenship is far too complex. Let us be frank: the federal apparatus is not really the most efficient when it comes to managing Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada files. I think the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is undoubtedly the most dysfunctional department in the entire federal government. We need only look back to find examples of how slow the federal administration is. There was a legislative reform in 2005, another one in 2009 and yet another in 2015. How many reforms will it take before we get rid of such ridiculous rules as losing one's citizenship because of a failure to reapply before the age of 28?

Currently, there are many citizens who were forgotten during those reforms. They are men, women, military spouses, children of soldiers, children born abroad, members of indigenous and Chinese-Canadian communities, people who fell through the cracks because previous reforms did not properly fix the act. Bill C‑3 seeks to ensure that past wrongs will not be repeated. The bill seeks to amend 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...

(c) allow citizenship to be granted...to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen...

(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...

This refers to this notorious and completely ridiculous provision that has been on the books since 2009. Normally, former Bill C‑71 should have received royal assent a long time ago, but parliamentary obstruction has gotten us to where we are today. People, women and children have had to wait because of political games and bickering between the federal parties. Crass, petty politics have been on full display in this Parliament over the past year.

The Bloc Québécois is here to work for our people. We are here working for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to their electoral ambitions. There are specific examples in Quebec. Take Jean-François, a Quebecker born outside Canada when his father was completing his doctorate in the United States. Even though he returned to Quebec when he was three months old and spent his entire life in Quebec, Jean-François's daughter was not automatically eligible for Canadian citizenship. This type of situation causes undue stress for families who should not have had to deal with the federal government's lax approach.

Despite what it says, this government is the same as its predecessor. This is not a new government. This government is piling up delays in processing citizenship and immigration applications for just about every program. That is what we see every time we check. It is not right that in 2022, 17 years after the first reform to fix lost Canadians' status, we are still talking about a bill to fix lost Canadians' status. That is completely mind-boggling. The public must sometimes wonder what we do here. That is not right.

In a situation like this, it is up to the government to come up with a solution that would allow individuals to regularize their status and regain their dignity once and for all, like all other citizens. It is a matter of principle. I said so at the beginning of my speech. As parliamentarians, we have to tackle our constituents' issues with a strong sense of duty, without getting into childish debates for purely dogmatic reasons. The “lost Canadians” problem should never have happened.

I repeat, citizenship must apply equally to all. Let us make one last reform, once and for all. We have to get it right this time, as a matter of equality, justice and principle. These families have been waiting long enough, and they deserve to have us working on their behalf.

That said, I think everyone agrees that we should not pass this bill under time allocation. As I said, we can pass it swiftly and efficiently while being thorough because we know exactly where all the parties that will sit on the committee stand on the issue. We know how all the parties will vote on the third reading of this bill.

I think we should move forward fairly quickly. As I said earlier when I asked my colleague a question, there are some urgent issues. The fundamental structure of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration needs to be changed with respect to several programs. I am thinking about the refugee system in particular. Is it reasonable for someone who has applied for asylum to have to wait four, five or six years? We saw one case where someone waited 12 years before their asylum application was processed. That person waited 12 years in a G7 country.

Wait times for work permit extensions are currently skyrocketing. I think they are now at 256 days. The measures that were rolled out in the fall for temporary foreign workers were a total fiasco for the Quebec regions. The immigration policies put in place by this government are one-size-fits-all, as though Calgary, Moose Jaw, Toronto, Montreal and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean all had the same realities.

One-size-fits-all immigration measures do not work, especially in Quebec, where French language courses must be offered. This is obviously an additional challenge for integrating newcomers. We want immigration to succeed in Quebec, but right now, the federal government is acting as though Quebec were identical to all other Canadian provinces. Even among the other Canadian provinces, there are differences when it comes to integrating newcomers. The realities are not the same.

The territories that make up the country known as Canada are completely different and have completely different realities. The federal government is taking the same approach to immigration as it is taking with its new “one Canadian economy out of 13” plan. It is doing the same thing. The federal government seems to think that there is only one reality when it comes to immigration. That does not make any sense.

As I was saying, we need to do something about application processing times. We need to do something about the reforms that were put in place for temporary foreign workers, because they are not working. We need to do something about asylum seekers. We need to help them get their claims dealt with a lot more quickly, and most importantly, we need to distribute asylum seekers more evenly across Canada.

Currently, Quebec and Ontario are doing much more than their share and, unfortunately, their intake capacity is overwhelmed. It is not right that asylum seekers arriving in Montreal should end up homeless right away because there is no money to house them properly. In the meantime, there are provinces in the rest of Canada that are doing absolutely nothing. They are not doing their part to take in asylum seekers.

I would remind the House that in 2024, the former immigration minister announced with great fanfare that he was going to form a committee and that arrangements would be made to distribute asylum seekers across Canada. That is what he said at a major press conference. A solution had been found, and the committee was going to be set up. Since then, there has been radio silence. We have heard nothing more about it, and no solutions have ever been proposed.

In the meantime, it is Quebec and Ontario once again that have to take care of welcoming the vast majority of asylum seekers. Again, there are issues that need to be addressed. Bill C-3 will tie up the committee, but it had better not tie it up for months because there are far too many other things that need to be addressed. That is why I am asking my colleagues to be diligent and to take their parliamentary work seriously. We know exactly where each party stands on this bill. We will listen to the amendments, if there are any. I think that we should definitely avoid filibustering this issue at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I urge my colleagues to do the same. That does not meant we will not propose amendments, of course, but let us be serious and diligent, and let us address problems that are very urgent, not just for newcomers, but also for the communities that welcome them, like the ones in Quebec.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech and his support for Bill C‑3, which seeks to correct significant injustices pertaining to citizenship.

I understand that the member is frustrated about the timing of the introduction of this bill, but parliamentarians have been debating these things for a long time. As a new MP, I am starting to learn and understand the system, and I know it could take some time.

Nevertheless, does my colleague think that the bill adequately addresses the concerns raised by the people affected, and how does he see it being implemented in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her election.

If this bill is passed, an injustice will certainly be corrected. Yes, these things take time. Sometimes, however, they do not take long enough. Would my colleague like to talk about Bill C‑5? It makes no sense. That kind of bill should take plenty of time. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.

That said, I believe that Bill C‑3 should be passed quickly, but it should still go through all the usual stages of a bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been expressed in debate today, Conservatives have deep concerns with two omissions in the bill. First, there is no consecutive residency requirement in the bill, which means somebody way down the generational chain could claim Canadian citizenship with no significant ties to Canada and no obligations to the country. The second thing is that there is no security vetting prior to the granting of citizenship.

Would my colleague entertain reasoned and smart amendments to rectify these deficiencies in the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will seriously study all of the amendments that are tabled.

I already see a few problems around these two issues, such as the fact that the government wants to make it so that people have to spend three consecutive years in Canada to get their citizenship. For one thing, this would limit their right to move. What happens if someone wants to spend a week in Cuba? They blow their three consecutive years.

I am open to considering my colleague's amendments. I doubt that the three consecutive years requirement would stand up in court. However, there could be another way forward. We will study the matter together in committee and call in experts to tell us what is and is not feasible.

As I said, I am open to considering the amendments. Once they are tabled, we will examine them thoroughly and work as we always do, in a respectful way.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague described the situation well. The government acknowledges that its immigration department has some very serious problems and that the public no longer has confidence in the immigration system. It even mentioned this in its own throne speech.

What is happening this morning, at the beginning of this new Parliament? The government is recycling. It thinks the public will start having confidence in it if it passes a bill. I am not saying that the bill is bad or unimportant, just that it fails to address the root of the problem. There have been seven immigration ministers in 10 years, and the same party has been in power for the last 10 years.

My colleague is very familiar with the immigration file. Can he tell me whether he truly thinks that the public will start having confidence in the immigration system again because of minor changes like the ones put forward in Bill C‑3?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, this is not the most urgent priority. As I mentioned earlier, over the past 10 years, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been the most dysfunctional department in the federal government.

There have been seven immigration ministers in 10 years. When a ship is sinking, changing captains is not going to help. A new ship must be built. The problems with immigration are systemic. In 2022, the immigration minister announced with great fanfare an $85‑million investment in his department to hire staff. In December 2024, he cut 3,300 jobs in his department. That is how he was managing the immigration system.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

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

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

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

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

I think that now is the time to do it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why has the bill been presented in this way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the results of the election are that the Liberal Party is back in government, and the former leader of the opposition did not make it back into the House of Commons.

I heard a lot about the spirit in which the Conservative Party was dividing Canadians. I just listened to the member degrade and speak with ill intent toward our members who have been speaking to Canadians, speaking to the people who send them to this House.

Can the member speak to how we can work, as members of this House, to better serve Canadians, with the understanding that the Conservatives did not come into government, because of the way they were treating Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to do that. In fact, I would speak to her boss, the Prime Minister, who appointed her as the House leader when the House was not sitting and then demoted her.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for her speech and for her strong convictions on this issue. We will not always agree on all the measures to be taken or on the entirety of a bill. However, it seems to me that in the case of this bill, everyone had pretty much agreed to finish with this measure, which has already been studied several times in previous versions of similar bills from the Senate and the House.

Does my colleague not think that we have much more pressing issues to deal with besides bills that we already debated in the previous Parliament? Should we not instead focus on everything that is wrong with the immigration department and try to do everything we can to fix it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to accept that in order to litigate and hold the government to account for its endless failures in the immigration system, the House should have to accept a bill that is so deeply flawed as this and that extremely denigrates the value of Canadian citizenship.

I agree with my Bloc colleague. I cannot wait to work with his colleague, who is the spokesperson for the immigration committee, and perhaps himself, to litigate the government on its failures. Giddy up, we are going to do it.

At the same time, I hope my Bloc colleague would work collaboratively to come up with amendments that at least both of our parties can agree on. On the consecutive residency requirement, I heard my colleague from the Bloc earlier say he was worried about people being able to travel. I am sure we can address that, but also vetting requirements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that very thorough and thoughtful presentation she did on the inefficiencies of Bill C-3, which the government is trying to ram through.

How is it fair to legitimate immigrants who spend their entire lives contributing to this country when the government is ready to give citizenship away to people who have never actually lived here?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not fair. If the government was serious about addressing that point, it would have tabled a bill that had some sort of consecutive residency requirement. I do not think that is asking for much, particularly since that is international best practice.

I do think that if the government was willing to accept an amendment to that point, it would solve all the problems. It would solve my Bloc colleague's problem about wanting to get on with the show. It would show the Canadian public that the House is serious about retaining the value of Canadian citizenship and not causing problems like what we were seeing without the first-generation limit. It would show some modicum of seriousness by the government to fix the immigration system it has so clearly broken.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know and I really do want to know how we can make the House function better and work together better, because that is what Canadians want from us. They want their members of Parliament to speak to each other like members of Parliament and find ways to work together.

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

Mr. Speaker, they should not table junky legislation. They should go to the immigration minister and say there was literally months and months of testimony that could have been included in this bill. She just pulled it off the shelf and then expected us to take it. This is not acceptable.

I will never back down on my responsibility to hold the government to account on behalf of my constituents. I know people do not like hearing it, but that is why I am paid to be here. This is what close to 60% of the good people of Calgary Nose Hill voted for on April 28: me standing here holding the government to account.

If the Liberals want to work collaboratively, they should not table junky legislation. It is easy.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to contribute to the discussion of this bill, and I thank the shadow minister.

I am an immigrant to Canada. We immigrated in 1995 as landed immigrants. In the year 2000, I was blessed with the gift of Canadian citizenship. I remember that day, when my entire family went to St. Clair and Yonge and we took our oath of citizenship before a judge.

This is something I find to be so incredibly valuable, such a gift to so many Canadians. Now, what we see from the Liberal government is an attempt to essentially devalue, dilute Canadian citizenship.

Would the shadow minister be so kind as to explain to folks at home how this bill actually dilutes and devalues Canadian citizenship?

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

Mr. Speaker, regardless of political stripe, I am so glad and blessed that I get to work with people who chose Canada and came to Canada and migrated to Canada and that we have a diversity of perspectives in the House, but the value of Canadian citizenship should not be debased with bills like this.

Did members know that the government eliminated the need for in-person citizenship ceremonies? One does not even need to go and gather with a group of people to get Canadian citizenship anymore. It is these measures that the government needs to get serious about. We are having a moment when the government needs to lead beyond whatever it is talking about in terms of economic measures and really atone for the fact that it said we were a postnational state with no identity and supported the desecration of Canadian national symbols.

We have to get our act together, and it starts by amending this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that the Ontario Superior Court made a decision that ultimately led to the legislation we have before us today.

The Conservatives like to talk tough. Pierre Poilievre is out there talking about all sorts of restrictions in terms of new immigrants even coming to Canada.

I am wondering if the member is being influenced by the far right in regard to immigration policy and citizenship policy. Can she indicate to the House to what degree the far right is now influencing immigration and citizenship policy here in the House of Commons?

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

Mr. Speaker, what an embarrassment that comment was. It was actually beneath any person in this place, given the severity of the confidence crisis that people are having in Canada on immigration, which has been perpetuated by the Liberal government.

Before the member's question, his colleague asked a salient question about how we can make this place work. I would ask her to ask the question of that member, who has a reputation for making inane, thoughtless, completely irrelevant statements. I wish he would have asked me about an amendment to this bill. I wish he would have asked me about something productive, but instead he debased himself, just as the Liberal government debases itself with this legislation.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke, in her awesome speech, about the fact that the government has no numbers. It got me thinking about the impact this has on the system in Canada. For example, all of us know that it takes a long time to get things through the immigration department. It has been plagued by a big backlog and delays. There are also other ways in which I could see new citizens impacting Canada, for example with old age security.

Could the member comment on some of the impacts that hundreds of thousands of new citizens might have on the costs in our government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could answer that with data that showed how many people would come in under this. Would that not be nice? However, the government does not have that information. How can it go to the provinces and say that it is going to cost them x amount of dollars in health care over x period of time, that it is going to cost them x amount in social services benefits or other types of social payments, or that it is going to impact the number of jobs or the future levels?

It cannot do that, and that is why it failed in the immigration system. The government has treated the immigration ministry like the armpit of cabinet. It has had—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-3. I will be splitting my time with the member for London West.

I stand here proudly as the member for Ottawa Centre and somebody who has gone through the immigration process, somebody who is a very proud Canadian, somebody who has taken the oath of citizenship and actually has participated in hundreds of citizenship ceremonies, because I once ran an organization called the Institute for Canadian Citizenship. I come to this debate with both a personal experience on this issue, a lived experience as a proud Canadian, and also a professional and legal understanding.

I think it is extremely important for Canadians, who may be listening intently to this debate, to understand what issue we are trying to resolve and how we got around to having this issue. This issue comes from a problem that was created by the Harper government, a problem that did not exist except for the fact that the Harper government, at a moment in time when it was all into taking away people's rights and was really interested in multiple classes of citizens, chose to bring a piece of legislation that took away the right of Canadian citizens to pass their citizenship on to their children.

This was at the same time, by the way, when the Harper government was doing things like the niqab ban, which was also struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, against the charter. This was at the same time when the Harper government tried to introduce a snitch line so that people could snitch on their neighbours if they felt that their values did not meet “Canadian values”, however we define that. Canadians, in the 2015 election, took care of that by saying that it is not our Canadian values to rat on our neighbours.

That is the history of this bill. I am hearing my Conservative colleagues, the hon. members on the other side, try to spin this thing left, right and centre, but the fact of the matter is that Bill C-3 exists in its current incarnation because the Harper government brought an unconstitutional piece of law that now the courts right here in the province of Ontario have deemed in violation of the charter. The government is simply fixing a problem the Conservatives created. I find it a bit rich, at times, when they are trying to ascribe some sort of blame to the government side, which is just trying to clean up the mess that the Conservatives left behind.

I do want to get into the substantive element as to why this legislation is important and why it is drafted in the manner it is. The Conservatives are trying to make the argument that the floodgates will open and millions of people out of nowhere will automatically become Canadian citizens, when they do not have any data to support whether that assertion is even close to true. Let us not try to obscure this debate by making arguments that may not even have a basis.

Let me give a precise example of a person I know whom I have been trying to help. This is a person I have known, personally, for a long time, who has been impacted by the unconstitutional—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have a point of order from the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the member is going to take some time in his speech to apologize to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot for interrupting his speech in Parliament yesterday, when he was—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That is not a point of order.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are rattled by me right now because I am trying to talk substantively about the bill. They would rather debate things that are fictional in nature, so they will raise a point of order that is not a point of order. Fine, that is fair enough.

I will go back. I have limited time, Mr. Speaker—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have another point of order from the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, his interruption of the member for Battle River—Crowfoot was not fictional. He just suggested that I was making up fiction. He actually did interrupt him. My question was whether or not he is going to apologize—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Again, this is not a point of order. This is a matter of debate. I also believe that the Speaker has already indicated that the seat for Battle River—Crowfoot was vacated.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me get to the crux of the matter. I am sharing a real-life example of a family that has been impacted by an unconstitutional law the Harper government brought in.

I have a good friend, somebody I have known for a long time and somebody I have been trying to help, whose parents immigrated to Canada, became Canadian citizens, worked hard in this country in pursuit of their professional obligations and left the country to work elsewhere. They had a child while they were Canadian citizens abroad. That child, the person I am helping in this matter, later on came back to Canada and went to school here. That is how I met her. She became a lawyer. She lived and worked here, and now she is living in France, where she got married. She is a Canadian citizen, and now she has two beautiful daughters from that marriage.

She is unable to pass on her Canadian citizenship because of the unconstitutional law the Harper government brought in. She was part of a group of people who challenged that law, which the Ontario Superior Court deemed unconstitutional. Unless and until we fix that grave error made by the Harper government, her children, who most likely will come back to Canada and who are Canadians because their mother is Canadian, will not be able to become Canadian until Bill C-3 is passed.

She told me one time, so sad that she was crying, that her parents' fault was that, even though they were nationalized Canadians, they took a job somewhere else in the world and did not come back to Canada when she was born. They stayed wherever they were living at that time, and as a result, somehow under the law, that connection was broken.

This legislation would fix the problem that was created by the Harper government. It would do so by providing for the “substantial connection” that the courts talked about. I have heard the debate about where the 1,095 days come from. That is required of any immigrant, like somebody who becomes a permanent resident when they come to Canada. Under the Citizenship Act, they have to be living in Canada for 1,095 days.

By the way, they are not cumulative, those 1,095 days, for someone to become a Canadian citizen. Anybody serving in Parliament who has become a citizen knows this. My family and I had to live here 1,095 days, and we did not do it in consecutive days over a three-year period. It was done over a four-, five- or six-year period in my family's case. That is where the standard is coming from. This bill would essentially keep the standard consistent by giving that criteria.

My time is limited, but I really want to stress that this is an important piece of legislation. This is legislation that would ensure we have only one kind of Canadian citizen, not tier A, tier B or tier C, as with the kind of effort we saw from the Harper government, to which thankfully our courts have been applying the charter in a manner ensuring that a Canadian citizen is treated equally under the law, that there are no different levels of Canadian citizens and that Canadians who live abroad are still able to pass along their Canadian citizenship when they have children.

We are a small country, but one of the most incredible things about Canada and being Canadian is how many Canadians we meet around the world anytime we travel. Canadians are proud, and one of our great virtues is that we contribute, take employment and engage in activities around the world. We are not a country that just lives within ourselves. One of the great benefits I have seen when travelling the world is meeting Canadians all over the world, but somehow the Harper government created a law that penalized Canadians for being abroad.

That is why I am supportive of this bill. I think it is high time we fix a grave error made by the Harper government. I am sad that it took us this long. I hope this time around the legislation will pass so that the Canadians who have found themselves in limbo and are unable to make their children Canadian citizens will see them become Canadian citizens and contribute to the well-being of our great country.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as a former attorney general, the member would choose his words more carefully. This court decision did not compel the Liberals to bring forward a bill of mass chain migration. It addressed a simple issue that there was a Conservative proposal to ameliorate.

My colleague criticized us for scaremongering and suggesting that millions of people will come to Canada. Could he tell us what the number is so we can have the facts?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would also advise the member opposite to use his words carefully and not fall into the trap of using slogans provided by his House leader or his leader's office, who does not even have a seat here. That is essentially what is happening.

I had never heard of the term “mass chain citizenship” until today in this House. Why? It is because somebody in Pierre Poilievre's office came up with it. Perhaps Pierre Poilievre has a lot of time on his hands nowadays, but repeating it again and again does not make it true. Let us deal with facts.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the parliamentary secretary had not looked at the bill until this morning and is learning all about it now.

There is one thing I want to point out. He talked about how the 1,095 days might be consistent with something else. The government's website says that someone has to have lived in Canada for three out of the last five years to be eligible to become a Canadian citizen. Would the member agree that is a better test for a substantial connection to Canada?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question.

It may be a better solution. That is exactly what the committee process is for. We know that bills go to committee and get amended. If Conservative members feel this does not allow for a substantial connection, then let us have that conversation at committee. That is exactly what we should do.

I was also responding to what I had heard, that this 1,095 days is a made-up number or that somehow we should have an American standard of five years. I disagree with that. If we can strengthen how we calculate the 1,095 days, let us have that conversation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

He said that it was not their fault and that the Conservative government created the problem. I would like my colleague to tell me why his government did not fix the situation before now if it was so serious.

There were parliamentary reports dating as far back as 2007 on lost Canadians. The issue got media attention. There was even a legal challenge filed in 2021. It took a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for the government to act.

I would like my colleague to explain why no one at the immigration department noticed that this was not working.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

In my view, I wish we had solved this problem before. Even when I was not a member of this House, I advocated on this issue. As I mentioned, I ran an organization called the Institute for Canadian Citizenship. This is one of the policy ideas we worked on. Perhaps we could have done it, but the moment is here.

It was delayed before, in the previous Parliament, but we have a bill. Of course, all bills need improvement. Let us get it to committee. Let us work fast at committee, make the improvements necessary, bring it back for third reading and pass it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member, just as I have, has attended citizenship ceremonies. It is always a very special moment for the people being sworn in as citizens.

One thing I always talk about is how wonderful it is to be a Canadian. Now the Superior Court of Ontario has highlighted that there is a difference between a naturally born citizen and someone who comes here and becomes a citizen. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the two-tier system that Harper set up and on the reason we have to get rid of it.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the point I was making. I thank the member for Winnipeg North for raising this point.

Conservatives were trying to create two tiers of citizenship, one for those of us who are born here and one for those who have been naturalized. Somehow there are different rules for those two categories of people. Well, guess what the courts have told us: That is not constitutional.

I take that very seriously from my own lived experience as somebody who came here at the age of 15. I have two children who were born in Canada. There should be no difference between the citizenship rights I have and those of my children born in Canada. We are trying to fix that through this law.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise to speak to this bill for the many reasons I spoke about it in this House in the last Parliament.

I have had the privilege of working with colleagues from all parties on committee specifically on this legislation, which impacts Canadian families. The spirit behind this bill is that Prime Minister Harper, in 2009, basically created a first-generation limit, creating a double system in immigration and causing children born outside of Canada to Canadian citizens to struggle to acquire their right to be Canadians.

First of all, Canada is built on institutions that uphold fairness, strengthen opportunity and provide certainty to its citizens, and today, as we are talking about Bill C-3, we have the opportunity to reinforce one of those foundational institutions, which is citizenship. I want to be clear that this bill addresses a gap between the intent of our laws and the lived reality of Canadian families. Specifically, it intends to restore the ability of Canadian citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship to their kids and grandchildren, ending a policy that left many Canadian families in limbo, unsure of whether their children would be recognized by the country they serve or contribute to and call home.

This is not an abstract policy fix. This is about restoring stability for military families that are posted overseas, for diplomatic corps who have represented Canada with dignity and integrity, and for the countless global Canadians who have lived and worked abroad while remaining firmly rooted in the values of our country.

Citizenship is not a transactional benefit. It is a covenant between the individual and the state, between generations, between past sacrifices and future potential. When we deny that link, we undermine the trust in our system and introduce a risk that erodes the social contract that underpins our democracy.

When families return home after years of service or work abroad, they should be able to resume their lives without bureaucracy clouding the future of their children. Bill C-3 would deliver that. It would provide clarity where there was confusion, fairness where there was inconsistency and continuity where there was disruption. It says to families that they are Canadian and their children are as well. That is not only the right decision; it is part of our foundation of rights, our charter rights.

Canadians work to pay taxes, contribute to our communities and are civically engaged. They raise their children to be Canadian. In the House earlier, I heard a number of members ask what really constitutes a deep connection to being Canadian. When a Canadian citizen has children, I am more than sure they pass Canadian values to their children regardless of where they find themselves in the world.

Having this conversation when a parent has a child and wants to return home means talking about bureaucracy, reaching out to IRCC and trying to figure out whom they can call, whether it is their member of Parliament or member of provincial Parliament. With that tier of bureaucracy, it is a very confusing system for Canadians who have served us and who, for different reasons, do not have Canadian citizenship.

This bill, in spirit, works to restore stability to help Canadians understand that it is their institutional right to be Canadians and not have the lawmakers of the country having that discussion. If Harper had not created this system, I do not think we would be having this conversation.

I will remind the many colleagues who have asked questions as if we are having this conversation for the first time that this is not the first time we have had this discussion. We have brought Canadian families who belong in the lost Canadian group to Parliament and told them we think it is important that we restore their citizenship. Here we are again having the discussion as if for the first time, questioning the many families that have struggled through this system wondering whether they belong as Canadians or not. We are having this debate today as if the work that has been done for the last number of years is not important, and that is not fair.

We need to protect Canadians, and we cannot afford to put them on pause due to legal technicalities that do not reflect modern mobility or the realities of a globalized world. As we build what we believe to be a fair Canada, we have to be fair to the men and women who have served our country and their children.

We have to be fair as well when we reach out to people to come here to talk to lawmakers and to engage in committees for a number of hours. My colleague from the Bloc Québécois mentioned earlier how many hours he spent listening to filibustering that happened on Bill C-71 when it was introduced in the House in the last Parliament. I can speak only to the last Parliament, because I was here. I was not here when the bill was first introduced, but in the last Parliament, I was here, and I saw the countless hours we spent filibustering, blocking conversations around whether or not Canadian families deserve to be Canadians.

They went through that. They withstood the long conversations. They listened to the banter. They listened to disagreements. They listened to people talk about them as if they were not humans and as if they were not in the room, to get to the end.

We got to the end. We brought the bill into the House. We passed it. It went to the Senate, and for parliamentary reasons, we are back at the bill again, and we are here to discuss it to make sure we can take it to committee, agree on amendments that make sense, and pass it quickly. The last thing we want to do is start conversations on whether or not people deserve to have Canadian citizenship restored.

Unfortunately, I have been here this morning and have listened to colleagues re-question. I have listened to colleagues who sat with me on committee and promised to those families that we would not do this again. They re-question instead of proposing amendments, instead of agreeing that we can send the bill to committee and work together on amending it in an appropriate way and in a fast manner that would actually stop the long delay of Canadian families going through limbo, where they do not know and are re-asking themselves whether they are valued Canadians.

I thought that we had settled that problem. I know that today's Chair was also on the committee. We settled the problem. We settled the issue of making Canadians question whether they belong. We settled the issue of having the banter and the debate that is politicized for Canadians, but here we are again.

I have listened to countless speeches in which people are putting those Canadians back into the debate of “Am I a valued Canadian?” I want to tell them that yes, they are a valued Canadian. I want to tell people like Don Chapman, who spent countless hours working with parliamentarians, working with committees and working with different members of our public service to make sure that we get to a place where lost Canadians are no longer considered lost and to where they are Canadians, as we all in the House believe that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

I am very happy to rise and to reassure the lost Canadian families, the many people who came to Parliament to speak to us and to ask us to make sure we pass the bill, that we are going to do that. We are not only going to make sure that we pass the bill; we will also work with all parties across the House to make sure that amendments make sense and that we do not have to put people through the limbo of questioning their value, of questioning whether they can even serve as Canadians and of questioning whether they are Canadian.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that amendments are on the table and that the government is willing to listen to them. One of the things, as the member well knows, is that we are very concerned about the bill's allowing for non-consecutive days in Canada and a fairly weak connection test to Canada.

I would like to remind the member that the rule for becoming a citizen is that people have to have been in Canada for three out of the last five years. I would ask the member whether she thinks that might be a better substantial connection test that could be done as an amendment to the bill.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite would remember, he was on that committee, and we worked on amendments that made sense. We passed the bill through the House. We sent it to the Senate. It is back now. If the member has amendments that he wants to propose, we can discuss them in committee, but the reality is that the member has supported the bill in the past.

With respect to the question around the numbers, I have heard many people ask, “How many is it?” We have had that conversation in committee. With respect to any question the member has had this day, we have had that conversation. We are saying that we are happy to bring in amendments that make sense, in committee, and work together with all parties to make sure that we do not put Canadian families through this limbo as—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rimouski—La Matapédia.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said earlier, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of this bill. We want to finally move on to something else because what we are doing this morning is recycling. I have to let honest workers and taxpayers know. This problem has existed since 2009, when the Conservative Party changed the legislation. We know the problem, and we know the solutions; now is the time to act.

My question for my colleague is this. If this issue is so important, why did her government not resolve it when it had a majority? The Liberals had a majority from 2015 to 2019. They had four years to do it, and nothing has been done.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague understands very well how Canadian democracy works when Canadians want an election. There were frequent calls for an election for several months in the House of Commons while I was here. Let us also remember that we were not a majority but a minority, and that our colleagues opposite continued to call for an election, which we gave them.

I think my colleague also understands that the Liberal government came back with 44 Quebec seats, so he understands that democracy works, in a way. I also appreciate the fact that his fellow party members will be able to work with us to pass this bill very quickly.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is good legislation, and it is very similar to the legislation that was in the previous Parliament. It is actually better legislation than two times ago, so we have made improvements, and the process at committees is working. We need to move forward to committee so we can call the question and consider any amendments.

I would like the member to reiterate whom the legislation would impact. We are hearing from the opposition side about the number of days and whether it should be similar to obtaining Canadian citizenship. I understand that the legislation would be actually dealing with Canadian citizens, and once someone has earned the privilege, the right to be a Canadian citizen, they are a Canadian citizen, and this is in regard to people having children abroad, the second generation abroad, but who are proud Canadian citizens.

I would just like the member to reiterate what the legislation is, why it needs to advance and the importance of it.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, a Canadian is a Canadian, whether someone is a Canadian by birthright or became a Canadian through naturalization, which is how I became a Canadian. I came here as a young refugee. I grew up here, and I worked hard to become a Canadian citizen. I am a Canadian citizen.

Imagine if I were able to serve outside of Canada now for a number of years; I would fall into the double-tier system the Harper government created to divide Canadians and make it so some are valued Canadians and some are not valued Canadians. That is what we want to get rid of. There are many service members like Don Chapman, whom I mentioned earlier, people who served our country and have been part of the lost Canadians, who want to make sure this does not continue to happen.

We are committed to making the legislation happen, because we believe a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to split my time.

This might be a new Parliament and a new Prime Minister, but we are tackling the same old problems with the exact same fraught solutions, and we have heard a lot about that today. What is worse is that the Liberal government cannot even admit the failures that every single Canadian now, no matter whom they voted for, can see exist.

I am going to cut right to it. The current government broke the Canadian immigration system. It broke the 100-year consensus of our system, and it has taken a system that was once the envy of the world, of so many people who have come to call Canada home, and made it a system that is now rife with abuse and incompetence. Frankly, it was not that way 10 years ago. The vast majority of Canadians, and any rational person, would look at this and say the exact same thing: The immigration system needs fixing. We need something to restore the trust and integrity that it once had.

However, now we have an immigration minister who cannot answer the most basic questions. In fact, there are members on the other side of the House who spoke today who probably read the legislation, who were at committee, and who have answered every single question better than she could. I learned that first-hand last week when the minister could not say how many people we have welcomed to Canada. She could not tell us whether they would ever complete proper security checks. She could not tell us who was going to leave, when they were going to leave nor how they were going to do that.

It seems like members of the Liberal government at this point are crossing their fingers. They are throwing anybody who has not yet been in the role of the immigration minister into the fight, hoping the problems just go away. That does not make our country safe. It does not ensure that people can access health care. It does not give people the opportunity to find jobs, does not help them find homes and does not keep the offenders or, frankly, terrorists from entering our country. Members may have noticed that the most reasonable people in this country on immigration are no longer walking on eggshells about the issue. They have called it out for what it is: a deeply broken system that the government over the last 10 years broke.

Here is what I have to say to the seven ministers in 10 years who have added to the breaking of the system in Canada and the consensus we once had with the system: The bill does not solve the problems that it was intended to solve. It actually creates more of them. That is what we need to ensure that the House understands.

Immigration levels have been far too high for the last number of years. I certainly think so. Municipal leaders think so. Provincial premiers think so. Even non-partisan civil servants think so. They have said as much. The proposed fix cannot be to have 100,000 people become citizens with a stroke of a pen or a vote of the House. Maybe it is 100,000; the government does not even know the number. We have heard multiple estimates from multiple members on the other side. That is irresponsible.

Bill C-3 talks about citizenship for people who have hardly spent any time in this country, just 36 months, which do not have to be consecutive. That is the number one problem with it.

What about security screenings? We have not talked a lot in the House about security screenings, the ones that the minister could not describe last week. She did not even know what they entailed. Bill C-3 would extend citizenship without basic security checks, without a single background check and without a single interview.

What about the backlog in our system that we have not talked much about? It has kept literally millions of people in line for years. The backlog of asylum claimants alone is nearly 300,000, while the citizenship backlog is about a million. Bill C-3 would obviously add to that backlog. There needs to be concern about a system that has lost all of its integrity and has lost the confidence of Canadians. We would want to ensure that the backlog does not get worse. Our own budget watchdog tells us that it will take $21 million, but he is handicapped on understanding the bill, as they do not know the numbers, how many it would affect, or how this would happen.

However, those are all secondary issues. Not only is the bill far away from what this country needs on immigration, but it is also a big step in the wrong direction. I think it would make the problems that the Liberals have created over the last number of years worse, so nobody should be celebrating.

I will make this clear: Nobody should be celebrating that our immigration system is broken. It has built this country. It has ensured that people like my parents can come here and flee the place that they do not even want to talk about anymore for a new life in Canada, where their first-generation child can become a member of Parliament, something that they would never have dreamed of. It is resilient. It makes our country unique, and it is part of our cultural and economic strength.

The country needs immigration, but it also needs to work for Canadians and to work for Canada. Right now, it does neither of those things. It works for nobody. It does not work for the young people, the old people, the first generation or the sixth generation. It does not work for people who cannot afford a home, people who cannot get in to see a doctor when they need one, people who cannot get a job when they have to or the people who have spent years languishing in lines, waiting their turn without any idea of when any of this would actually happen. It does not help the people who were scammed by the fake colleges or foreign-cash-addicted universities that, under the watch and the encouragement of the government, have gotten out of control. It does not serve the people who came here for the promise of this country.

About 40% of our newcomers already say that they want to leave. We cannot pretend that using a hammer, in this case, is going to fix something that could be fixed with a scalpel.

Based on this, it should come as no surprise that, despite promising a lower amount of newcomers, the government is still issuing a record number of permits. This year, there have been nearly 100,000 study permits and 50,000 temporary work permits. This should be expected from an immigration minister who told this country, in her previous job as the immigration minister for Nova Scotia, that she wanted absolutely no caps on immigration. She has denied that. It is not a great track record to engender confidence in the new seventh minister in 10 years.

If the members opposite actually want to take an interest in making this better, I have some advice to make it better. While we do need to fix the wrongs of the past, the former bill did that. If there are elements and specific cases where it did not, we could find ways to do it with a very targeted approach. We supported fixing the lost Canadians via the targeted bill that we saw from the other place, Bill S-245, but Bill C-3 goes too far.

Bill C-3 actually weakens Canadian citizenship. It would devalue Canadian citizenship for everyone else. It would open the door by eliminating the ties to Canada as a requirement, or at least the strength of the ties to Canada as a requirement. It would eliminate the first-generation limit. It would grant citizenship to those born abroad with one parent who has spent 1,095 consecutive days here.

We have heard a lot of conversation about this, and I am glad to hear that the members opposite, the Liberals, are open to amendments to changing that, to substantiating it into a test that makes sense. They are not required to have substantial ties.

Again, the vague substantial connection test allows multi-generational foreign residents to claim citizenship with minimal presence in Canada. That devalues the citizenship. It devalues not only the rights that are afforded to every other citizen but also the responsibility that citizens have in making sure that they are citizens.

I want to make Canada's immigration system the envy of the world. We cannot do that if Canadians do not believe in the integrity of the system. We cannot do that if we look out onto our streets today and see what is happening, while we are saying no to security vetting, to any kind of interview or to making sure that criminal record checks are conducted. We cannot possibly stand up today in this country and say that is not necessary.

I look forward to hearing what the Liberals' thoughts are on an amendment that would ensure security and vetting are taken seriously, something that the Liberals have not done in our immigration system. It is something that has played out on our streets here in Canada, something that has been shown in case after case of people being charged before they committed a terrorist act in this country. I want to see a government take this responsibly, and I want to see citizenship mean something in this country.

We have a bill without its amendments and the provisions the government currently has with the minister, who knows nothing about the bill, who has presented it in the House. I want to see those changed. I look forward to having that conversation, but I look forward more to the Liberals accepting those amendments.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard Conservative after Conservative get up to talk about a substantial connection. A lot of provinces have substantial connection rules too. For example, the Province of Alberta says that someone cannot run as an MLA unless they have had a substantial connection of at least six months.

I am curious if the member believes that Pierre Poilievre should have a substantial connection to Alberta before he runs as a member of Parliament in that province.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that we were going to have a serious conversation about the bill. Maybe the member has not read it.

I assure members that Pierre Poilievre will seek the support and trust of the people of Battle River—Crowfoot, a place where he grew up, a place where he was born and a place where he was raised .

I look forward to his bashing down that member when he is back in September.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government mentioned in the throne speech that its priority is to restore public confidence in the immigration system. I would like my colleague to simply tell me whether she agrees that this bill, which seems rather minor to me, will really restore public confidence in the immigration system.

What concrete steps does she suggest we prioritize to really address the root causes of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's deep-seated problems?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, it would be giving Canadians the confidence of an immigration minister who can answer a single question in the House, who knows a single thing about her portfolio or who has even read the bill that she has presented in the House. That would be the first thing to engender confidence in an immigration system that the government has broken over the last 10 years.

We used to have the best system in the world. It brought the best and the brightest to the country. That is no longer the case. Members do not have to hear it from me. We could go ask 10 Canadians on the street if they think the system is broken, and they would tell us, 10 out of 10 times, yes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues we have with the government is the abject failure of minister after minister on the immigration file. We have seen it here today. When I look at the departmental plans that just came out, late, of course, from the government, over the last four years, I see that it has failed on over 50% of its metrics.

Every single year, the department is failing more than it is succeeding in achieving its goals. I wonder if my colleague could provide some insight as to why the government is focusing on issues instead of fixing its problems in-house.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. colleague from this side has spent exponentially more time looking at the immigration minister's website than the actual Minister of Immigration, who does not know the numbers and does not know the issues. The very fact that the Liberals have had seven ministers in 10 years should tell us everything we need to know about how seriously the government takes the issue of immigration.

For Canadians to have a system that is so deeply broken, after having one that was the envy of the world for so many years, is a travesty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like my colleague to provide me with more information about the proposal to security screen Canadian citizens, because I am trying to understand what she is saying.

For example, in my riding of Trois-Rivières, there is a Canadian citizen whose child was born prematurely while he was travelling abroad. This citizen came to Canada at the age of five to escape an oppressive regime.

Should the security screening be done on the baby, who cannot receive medical care right now because he is not yet a Canadian citizen, or should it be done on the dad, who has been in Canada for 40 years?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the answer is no, of course. The question has, frankly, nothing to do with what we are talking about here. The very idea that we could have a targeted approach for those who claim to be Canadian citizens, who have no connection or substantial connection to this place, and who are adults who want to enjoy the responsibility of Canadian citizenship, is what we are talking about. The member opposite ought to know that.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, not just as the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill South, but as a representative of one of the ridings with the highest concentration of first-generation and second-generation Canadians, where close to 90% of residents are either immigrants to Canada themselves or have parents who were immigrants to Canada.

This is not just a statistic. It is the lived experience of my constituents. These are families that came to this country with nothing but hope, a Canadian promise and a work ethic. These are people who took jobs that kept this country running, in engineering, nursing homes or small businesses. These are people who waited years, followed every rule, got an education, trained, recertified for jobs, studied for their citizenship exams, paid their taxes, paid their dues and did everything right.

In my riding, many new Canadians came here fleeing war, political persecution or economic hardship. They are people who sacrificed everything just to give their children a chance at a better life.

Many of them came from places, such as Iran, where dissidents are jailed for speaking freely by a brutal totalitarian regime. Others came from Hong Kong, where democracy and freedom are eroding. Some came from China to seek a better life for their children. Still others arrived from post-war Europe with little more than the clothes in their suitcases. These people did not just arrive here with a passport offered to them. They built the foundations of Canada with their bare hands. They all came here to build a better life, and they made Canada stronger in the process. When they finally swore the oath to become Canadian citizens, it meant something. It was a moment they longed for, a moment they dreamt about, and a moment of immense pride and earned belonging.

While the Liberals have spent the last 10 years erasing the very heritage that defines who we are as a country, they are now turning the page and undermining what it means to be a Canadian citizen.

When the Liberal government tabled Bill C-3, a bill that offers automatic Canadian citizenship to people who have never stepped foot in this country, never paid taxes here, never even expressed a desire to live here, and never even sang O Canada under our proud flag, I could not stay silent.

This bill sends a clear message to my constituents in Richmond Hill South. Their hard work, their patience, their loyalty to this country means less than someone else's paperwork and bloodline. This bill does not fix the system the Liberals broke. It deepens the unfairness. It makes a mockery of the sacrifices made by immigrants who paid their dues. It is yet another example of a Liberal government that is more concerned with global virtue signalling than with actually standing up for the people who built this country.

Let us talk about fairness, because that is what this debate is really about. Across this country, there are millions of immigrants who came to Canada legally. They followed the rules, waited patiently in line and built their lives here, working long hours, raising families, paying taxes and volunteering in their communities.

Many of them have been here for years, contributing more to Canada than most people, yet they still cannot get their citizenship finalized. I have personally experienced this as a member of Parliament for Richmond Hill South. Having only been elected for less than two months, my constituency office has received hundreds and hundreds of immigration case files already.

I have met many new Canadians who are more engaged in their communities than most Liberal politicians, yet they are stuck in the limbo because of a backlog, bureaucratic red tape and a system broken by Liberals that treats them like a statistic.

Now, this same Liberal government wants to give away Canadian citizenship like it is some kind of souvenir. Bill C-3 would grant citizenship automatically to people born abroad, even if they have never been to Canada, never contributed to our economy, never served under our flag, never celebrated our heritage and never even intended to live here.

How is that fair? How do we tell someone who has been working in Canada for years, building a life, contributing to the economy, paying taxes and sometimes even raising Canadian-born children, that they must continue to wait, jump through hoops, navigate a system broken by the Liberals, while someone born abroad who has never set foot here is handed citizenship automatically by the Liberal government, without question?

It is offensive. It is elitist. It sounds like an idea that came straight from Davos at the World Economic Forum. More importantly, it does not embody the Canadian promise.

This is just the Liberal way, which is to erase our heritage, mock hard-working immigrants and reward those with connections, global privilege and the right bloodline, while ignoring the working-class immigrants who have done the real work of building this country.

This is the same Liberal government that has thrown open the borders to criminals crossing into our country illegally but that forces honest immigrants to spend years waiting for a fair hearing. This is not compassion. This is not about justice. This is political theatre, a feel-good vanity bill from a Liberal government obsessed with symbolism and blinded to the reality facing new Canadians on the ground.

Even more alarming is that the bill would eliminate the first-generation limit but would open the door to granting citizenship to those born abroad if just one parent had spent 1,095 days in Canada over their lifetime, even nonconsecutively, which is three years spread out however they like. There are no requirements for criminal background checks, understanding or experience of what it means to be Canadian or demonstrated commitment to this country; it is just a rubber stamp. This makes a mockery of the standards that immigrants have spent years trying to meet.

Conservatives believe in something different. We believe that citizenship is a badge of belonging, not a trinket that is passed around. We believe it should be earned by those who commit to this country, who uphold our values, who are loyal to Canada and who are proud to call Canada home, not handed out based on convenience. We stand with the people who work hard, follow the law and contribute to our communities; these are people who are too often forgotten by the Liberal government and betrayed by a system that favours the global elite over the Canadian worker. While the Liberals reward inherited privilege, Conservatives will fight for those who invest in Canada, not those who treat it like it is a backup plan.

Let us talk about what the bill gets fundamentally wrong about the very meaning of Canadian citizenship. One of the most troubling aspects of Bill C-3 is that it continues to treat Canadian citizenship as a trophy that is passed on rather than a civic privilege tied to commitment, values and contribution. This is a profoundly elitist and out-of-touch view of what it means to be Canadian. Canada is not a bloodline. It is not an accident of birth. Canada is a country a person believes in, a country they build, a country they choose and a country that should choose them because of their loyalty and their commitment to its success.

What is even more concerning is that no real ties to Canada would be required if the Liberal legislation passed. The bill proposes a vague substantial connection test, a standard so loose that it opens the door to granting citizenship to people who may have no or only minimal or even symbolic interaction with Canada, subject to the broad discretion of unelected bureaucrats. Multi-generational foreign residents could potentially claim Canadian citizenship without ever having lived here, worked here or embraced the values we hold dear. That is not a recipe for national cohesion; it is a recipe for chaos. However, under Bill C-3, someone who happens to be born abroad to a Canadian citizen and who has not lived in Canada for decades would get a free pass, while someone who volunteers in their community, pays taxes, works hard, celebrates our heritage and raises children in Canada is left waiting. It is wrong; it is backwards, and it cheapens the value of citizenship.

Bill C-3 says that citizenship is about bloodlines. Conservatives say citizenship is about belonging, contribution, allegiance and shared values. The Liberal government wants to create a system where privilege and ancestry matter more than action and values. That is not the Canada our parents and grandparents built, and it is not the Canada we should leave to the next generation.

There is more at stake here than just principle, because there is also the cost of it. With automatic citizenship comes automatic obligations, including the duty to protect and evacuate citizens during international emergencies. We saw the staggering cost of deploying consular services and evacuation operations during a crisis in Lebanon. If Bill C-3 is passed, we may be on the hook to rescue and bring into Canada and provide those services to individuals who have never even lived in Canada and who may have no actual connection to this country beyond mere paperwork.

Canada must never become a country that values someone's last name more than their loyalty to this country. The worst part is that the Liberal government admits it does not even know how many people this would apply to. There are no numbers, no data and no accountability. It is just another open-ended promise with Canadian taxpayers left to foot the bill. This is not irresponsible; it is reckless. It reeks of the same people who cannot be bothered to table a budget.

I will end with this: Conservatives will always stand up for strong families, for people who are loyal to this country, for the people who built this country and who are still doing so, including the hard-working immigrants of Richmond Hill South. They will fight for fairness, for hard work, for earned citizenship and for a Canada that puts Canadian citizens and our heritage first.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member realizes that the legislation is before us, in good part, because of a decision that was made in an Ontario superior court. In that decision, there is reference to a double standard. The administration of Stephen Harper made changes, in essence establishing two tiers of Canadians: those born here in Canada and those who are naturalized here in Canada, becoming permanent residents and eventually citizens.

Does the member, and the Conservative Party, believe today that it is okay to have a double standard for Canadian citizens?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, rights come with responsibilities. Citizenship is more than a legal status; it is a bond to this country.

If someone has never lived here, never contributed and never shown any connection to Canada beyond a parent's passport, how can we say they are truly Canadian? We are not talking about military families or aid workers here. We are talking about a wide open policy with no limits and no accountability. That is not compassion. That is recklessness.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, right now the Liberals are criticizing Harper's first-generation limit and claiming they need to fix the system. I decided to go look at Hansard, and the Liberals passed a unanimous consent motion to pass Bill C-37 at all stages on February 15, 2008.

Why is it that Liberals continue to mislead the House? Would the member agree that the Liberals today are a far cry from the Liberals from a generation ago, who believed in all-party consensus on immigration policies?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear here. This is not about punishing Canadians born abroad. It is about respecting the meaning of Canadian citizenship.

My constituents in Richmond Hill South did not get citizenship handed to them by bloodline. They earned it. They waited. They worked. They sacrificed. All we are saying is, if someone wants citizenship, they should show the same commitment.

The bill erases that standard and replaces it with a bloodline test. That is not fairness. It is privilege. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity, not automatic entitlements.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while we were prorogued, we had a special constituent born: Remi Robson Murray, the grandchild of my former teacher Cam Murray and the child of Aidan and Jessie. I welcome Remi to our great Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I also want to give a special shout-out to my goddaughter, who is celebrating her graduation this weekend, Emery Britton. It has been a pleasure and an a honour watching her grow into the young woman she is. I am so proud of her.

To my hon. colleague, we have heard a lot of talk from the Liberals. Would he agree that over the last 10 years, their talk and their rhetoric have not matched their actions?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent the last 10 years erasing our heritage and breaking our immigration system.

Instead of trying to fix that immigration system, fixing that backlog and capping the levels of immigration, they have decided to exploit this opportunity, a bill that was tabled by our side of the aisle under the Senate, and turn it into some vanity ideological project. It is simply insulting, and it is simply a mockery of everyday Canadians, especially immigrants who have worked hard their entire lives, and who have paid their dues, paid their taxes and contributed to Canada.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the member perhaps just bring it back to the legislation? The fact is that with Canadian citizenship, rights and privileges do come with responsibilities, which I agree with.

Does the member agree that the right way to provide suggestions and amendments to the legislation would be at committee?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals truly cared about fairness and cared about fixing their legislation, they would clear the backlog that real immigrants are facing right now, instead of turning the bill and this opportunity into a vanity ideological project.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Spadina—Harbourfront.

I acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑3 and the transformative power of Canadian citizenship. Fundamentally, this bill is about people, real families, as well as their history, their sacrifices and their deep and lasting ties with Canada, regardless of where their careers or lives take them.

I am an example of this myself. My two children were born in New York when I was completing my master's degree. Although they have lived in Canada for most of their lives and my ancestors settled in Batiscan, near Trois‑Rivières, in the 17th century, the law enacted by Stephen Harper's Conservative government could prevent my grandchildren from holding Canadian citizenship or require them to undergo security screening to ensure that they are entitled to citizenship should they decide to study or work in another country at some point in their lives. What the Conservative government did affects the choices of people who wish to study or work abroad because, if they do that, their children might not get Canadian citizenship.

Citizenship is a legal status, but more than that, it is about belonging to a diverse, welcoming community bound by shared democratic values. In today's world, where migration and mobility are facts of life, Canada has a chance to lead by example. While some countries restrict access to citizenship, Canada is taking a more principled approach with this bill, an approach that encompasses diversity, cross-border families and the lasting ties that Canadians have with other countries.

Many Canadians live and work abroad. There are Canadian expat communities in big cities all over the world. These expats work in a variety of fields, including international development, the arts, science, education, global trade and humanitarian work. These citizens have deep ties to Canada. They often move back here to raise children, take care of loved ones and build new communities. Taking action to make sure that their children can share this identity, even if they were born or adopted abroad, is not simply a matter of fairness. It also makes our country more cohesive and influential on the world stage.

Today, I want to share what new Canadians told us about why Canadian citizenship is important to them, how becoming a citizen affected them, and what we should do to continue to protect the rights, responsibilities and shared values of citizenship.

The act of becoming a Canadian citizen is often described as a very proud moment. As my Conservative colleague mentioned, people are proud to make Canada their home and proud of the journey they took to get here. Becoming a Canadian citizen is the culmination of years of sacrifice, hard work and perseverance, not just for the person themselves, but often for their whole family. It is a moment that connects them to their community. It is also an opportunity to take part in something greater than themselves.

Many MPs have had the honour of witnessing the emotional impact of that moment. Newcomers, often accompanied by their children, clutch their certificates tightly, knowing that their family's future is safer in our wonderful country. That feeling of pride goes beyond borders. People around the world hope to get the opportunity to make Canada their home. To those fleeing conflict, persecution and hardship, Canadian citizenship represents a fresh start, a second chance at life. It is a privilege that most do not take lightly.

The gratitude expressed by new citizens is profound. People often talk about the opportunities that Canada offers, especially when it comes to education, health care and peace. These pillars of Canadian life are the cornerstones of a better future, not only for new citizens themselves, but also for their children and future generations. Whether through volunteering, participating in local cultural events or simply getting to know their neighbours, new Canadians are actively involved in strengthening the fabric of our society. They embody Canada's spirit of generosity and contribute in many ways to the success of their communities.

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

At a time when disinformation and division, including division here in the House, can threaten confidence in public institutions, Canada must show that its commitment to fairness extends across borders.

Providing thoughtful, inclusive pathways to citizenship beyond the first generation affirms that Canadian identity is shaped not only by place of birth, but also by connection, contribution and values.

This bill aims to automatically remedy the status of individuals who would have been Canadians were it not for the first-generation limit. It also creates a forward-looking new framework for citizenship by descent. In the future, children born abroad beyond the first generation will be eligible for citizenship if their Canadian parents can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. This is important. In the future, as long as the Canadian parent who was born abroad spends a cumulative total of three years in Canada before the birth of their child, their child will also be born a citizen. There is no need to be conducting security screening on babies.

The objective and structure of the Citizenship Act have been that children adopted abroad by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadians are treated as similarly as possible, and this will continue to be the case after Bill C‑3 comes into force.

The great privilege of Canadian citizenship comes with great responsibility. It is a responsibility to engage, to contribute and to build on the values that make our country what it is. Citizenship is not just a destination. It is a journey and a commitment to community, justice and mutual respect. This is why, once Bill C‑3 is passed, Canadians born outside Canada who adopt children abroad will have to meet the same substantial connection requirement to have access to the direct grant of citizenship for adoptees as they would have to meet to pass on their citizenship if they had a child born abroad. These children, whether adopted abroad or born abroad, will also have to meet the substantial connection requirement to pass on their citizenship if they have or adopt children abroad in the future.

In conclusion, obtaining Canadian citizenship is an important and emotional step. It is a privilege that entails opportunity and gratitude, as well as a responsibility to stay true to the values that unite us. Citizenship is not simply a legal matter. It is a reflection of who we are and who we include. By passing Bill C‑3, we will be choosing connection over exclusion, equity over limitation. We will be telling Canadians around the world and their children that their connection to our country is important and that their stories, contributions and sense of belonging are part of what makes Canada strong.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech intently. One thing we need to know as we study this bill in the House and maybe further in committee is the impact of it on Canada. In other words, how many people would this bill impact? How many new Canadians would it create?

I ask that because it is important. It would affect the administrative requirements of Canada with people applying for citizenship, applying for old age security and applying for passports. Also, there would be financial implications. If people are going to gain old age security, that is going to be a cost.

I wonder if the member has an idea of how many people this bill would impact and what the cost would be.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, those are excellent questions that should be addressed at committee, which is the next step for this bill.

I see no reason to continue down the path of division. I think that enough Canadians have come forward. We have seen people here.

As a newly elected member, I was not here during the last Parliament, but I know that this bill has been under discussion for a very long time and that information has been shared and examined in committee. Now, I think that Canadians expect us to move our study of this bill forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that there has been a great deal of discussion over the years in regard to this particular issue. One could argue that we could date it all the way back to 2008-09. Whether it is debates inside the chamber or debates in committee rooms, there has been a great deal of discussion.

I hear there are concerns from the Conservative members, and I believe it would be beneficial for the Conservatives to have amendments. We are heading into the summer, and I am not convinced the bill is going to pass before the break, but it would be wonderful to have more dialogue and discussions about potential amendments.

Could I get the member's thoughts on that? The minister made it very clear in her opening remarks that as a minister, she is very open to ways the bill could be improved. Could she provide her thoughts on the willingness of the Minister of Immigration to hear amendments?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary, I would like to have members' attention.

As colleagues are entering the chamber before question period, there is a lot of noise. If we could, let us continue with debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I believe the Conservatives are continuing a tradition of relying on divisive slogans and rhetoric.

As my colleagues and the minister herself pointed out this morning, we are open to amendments, as long as they are constructive and in the spirit of what we are trying to do, which is to fix the legislation that was passed in 2009.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question for my hon. colleague, who gave an excellent speech. What is the importance of introducing this legislation right now?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been trying for a long time to get this through so we can right the wrongs of the past and fix what was put in place. I think it is important that we do this as quickly as possible.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that it is very important to pass this bill. Her government could have already done that, since it had a majority from 2015 to 2019. It knew both the problem and the solutions. This goes back to 2009.

Today, the government is telling us that we need to restore public confidence in our immigration system. We are not going to get there by recycling bills that have been dragging on for many years.

I would like an honest answer from my colleague. Does she really think that the bill will address the root of the problem within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which is the most dysfunctional department in the federal government?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused, because I heard my colleague speaking earlier and it sounded like he agrees with the bill that was introduced.

I would say that we are continuing our efforts in that direction. As a newly elected member, I am looking ahead to the future with our new government.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the member shared her family's story in the context of this bill.

Does she have any other stories she could share, perhaps in a different context, but still related to this bill?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I shared the story of one of my constituents whose child was born prematurely while he was travelling. Now the child is three months old and needs medical care. Unfortunately, he cannot get his Canadian citizenship because his parents were born abroad. This means he cannot receive medical care because the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec, or RAMQ, refuses to issue him a health insurance card because he is not a Canadian citizen.

This issue is causing real problems for some children.

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

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to provide some clarity around a few of the measures included in Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act for 2025.

Under the Citizenship Act, there are three ways to become a Canadian.

First, people can immigrate to Canada to get Canadian status. This is the story of my parents. I am the proud daughter of Vietnamese immigrants. My family came to Canada with hopes of safety and opportunity for their children. Like countless newcomers, they worked hard to build a future with the promise of true belonging. They earned their Canadian citizenship the way many families have, through resilience, hope and a deep commitment to this country.

Second, they can become a citizen by being born here. This is the story of my boys. Being Canadian, for me, meant that I did not have to pay a $100,000 hospital bill to have my children. My boys have inherited something that so many around the world dream of: Canadian citizenship. It matters to me as a mom and as a member of Parliament representing over 41,000 immigrants in my riding of Spadina—Harbourfront. We must continue to protect Canadian values while ensuring that the pathway to getting citizenship is transparent.

Finally, someone can become a citizen by descent. This is where Bill C-3 steps in. It addresses the much-needed changes in Canada's approach to citizenship. In the previous act, Canadians who were born in Canada or who became citizens through immigration could pass citizenship on to children born abroad. However, those who inherited their citizenship by descent were not allowed to pass it on to their children born outside Canada. This rule, known as the first-generation limit, has created two tiers of Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-3 would make two major changes to restore fairness and reflect our charter values.

First, it would automatically restore or grant citizenship to individuals who lost it or were denied it due to outdated provisions, including the first-generation limit and the old rule that required people to apply to retain their citizenship by age 28. This includes lost Canadians, people who fell through the cracks of the law despite their deep connection to Canada through their parents and grandparents. They should never have been left out of our national fabric. They include the children of public servants posted abroad and people who lost their citizenship only because of technicalities. If enacted, this bill would extend automatic citizenship to anyone who was born outside the country to a Canadian parent before the legislation came into force and who is not currently able to claim citizenship by descent, because of the first-generation limit.

Second, Bill C-3 would introduce a new framework for citizenship by descent beyond the first generation. Our proposed legislation would extend citizenship by descent beyond the first generation in a way that would be inclusive and uphold Canadian values. Any child born abroad when or after Bill C-3 comes into force, to a Canadian citizen who was also born outside Canada, would be Canadian from birth if their parent can demonstrate that they have a substantial connection to Canada in the form of three years of physical presence in the country before the child's birth. This strikes a fair balance. It would protect the integrity of Canadian citizenship while recognizing that many Canadians live, work and raise families abroad but remain deeply connected to the country they call home.

What about now? What about families who cannot wait? If enacted, once in force, the bill would extend automatic citizenship to anyone who was born outside the country to a Canadian parent before the legislation came into force. This would include those who are currently not able to claim citizenship by descent, because of the first-generation limit. This would also include lost Canadians and their descendants. We know we cannot predict the number of children who would be born abroad when or after Bill C-3 is enacted. The current Citizenship Act will remain in force until this coming November. As Bill C-3 makes its way through the parliamentary process and the first-generation limit continues to be in force, IRCC has introduced an interim measure so that people impacted by the first-generation limit would have a pathway to citizenship. These are important steps while we work to enshrine these rights into law.

What happens if this bill is not enacted? After November 20, if Bill C-3 is not in force, there would be no limit to citizenship by descent for many people born to Canadians abroad. Without this bill, Canadian citizenship for many could be passed in perpetuity to future generations born outside Canada, regardless of their connection to our country. However, others would remain restricted by the first-generation limit. There are several groups who would not become citizens or have access to citizenship as a result of the court declaration taking effect before Bill C-3 comes into force.

I am proud to stand with a government that has put forward this bill and is finally getting this right, because being Canadian is more than a legal status; it is a promise. It is a promise of belonging, of dignity and of equal opportunity. It is a promise that has shaped my own life and the lives of millions. To be Canadian means having access to our democratic institutions, to vote, to run for office and to contribute fully to public life. It means access to job opportunities, public services and, yes, a passport that opens doors around the world. More than that, citizenship is about identity; it is about saying that someone is one of us.

When we arbitrarily deny that promise to people with deep, verifiable connections to Canada, we are not upholding the value of citizenship. Instead, we are undermining it. We cannot leave behind those who love this country, who are tied to it by family, service and sacrifice. These are Canadians, and it is time we recognize them as such.

In a moment when our country is striving to build unity, Bill C-3 is a step in the right direction. It is a step towards closing historical gaps, recognizing families in their fullness and embracing all who carry Canada in their hearts, even if they were born outside our borders. This is how my parents built a life for my family. It is how I built a life for my children and how we can welcome home the lost Canadians.

I am proud to be the member of Parliament for a riding that is a mosaic. Immigrants are the backbone of this country, and Spadina—Harbourfront is a place where dreams take shape every day. We hear multiple languages on the sidewalk. We see small business owners opening shops before sunrise. We feel the vibrancy of different cultures, faiths and histories woven together, not in spite of our difference, but because of them.

Let us be a country that does not forget. Let us be a country that welcomes, recognizes and belongs to those who belong to it. Let us pass Bill C-3.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a new member, so I welcome her to this place and thank her for her commitment to being a part of this important process.

This is a government bill that would allow many more people to become citizens of Canada. I assume that, in putting the bill forward, the government knows how many people it would affect and has an estimate of what additional costs it would impose on social services based on the right that these new citizens would have to access those services.

I wonder if the member could simply share with the House how many people this would affect and what the government's cost estimate for these new measures is.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of how many people would be impacted by this legislation, the reality is that the majority of lost Canadian cases were remedied by the legislative amendments that were implemented in 2009 and 2015, with about 20,000 people either acquiring citizenship or having their citizenship restored through the amendment.

The government has not tracked births abroad since the Citizenship Act came into force in 1977, so it is impossible to estimate the number of persons born abroad to Canadian citizens. The department only becomes aware of these individuals if they choose to engage with a department for services, for example, seeking proof of citizenship or a passport. Moreover, not every person who has become a citizen automatically through previous legislative amendments will choose to engage the department on their status and request documentation of the status. Between 2019 and 2023, inclusively, IRCC received an average of 48,000 applications for proof of citizenship certificates annually.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet my colleague through the organization À voix égales, which promotes the place of women in politics. In fact, I am sorry to see that there are fewer women in the new Parliament. That is what I wanted to say. She may answer if she wishes.

I have a more specific question for her. During her remarks, my colleague talked about her family's arrival in Canada.

Does she think that women arriving here in 2025 have access to all the services they need to assist them when various studies have shown that women arriving here are often penalized, especially francophone women?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the colleague across the floor for her very thoughtful question, and I appreciate the time we worked together in the past promoting the space of women in politics and women in leadership.

In terms of the services in the country supporting women as they come through their immigration experience, the federal government does support a wide range of programs that support the integration of newcomers, and their experience, with programs such as the HIPPY program, which is a federally funded and supported program. It is an example of the kind of supports that exist in our system.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was fascinating to hear about the member's family. We heard a little bit of emotion when she talked about her parents and her children, and just how much people who have come to Canada can give. Unless one is indigenous, everyone immigrated here at some point, and it is important that we value what people come to give and contribute.

Within the riding of Waterloo, I have a constituent who was born abroad, but came to Canada right away. Her family is from Canada, and she contributes in Canada and pays taxes in Canada. She works for a Canadian company, but was travelling abroad when she delivered her baby earlier than expected. Because she was born abroad, and now her baby was born abroad, her baby was not eligible for citizenship.

I would like to hear the members' comments on that issue. Should the child of a Canadian be a Canadian?

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe they should. I know that, in the meantime, while Bill C-3 is hopefully moving through the system, we have introduced interim measures to support those affected. Individuals born abroad before December 19, 2023, can apply for a discretionary grant of citizenship under section 5(4) of the Citizenship Act. Those born after that date may also be eligible if their parents spent at least three years in Canada before their birth. We have also prioritized those virgin cases. This is how we are prioritizing and making sure that no one falls through the cracks at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear.

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, is that child—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The problem arises if her children are born abroad.

[Pierre Paul‑Hus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Bardish Chagger]

That is not a point of order.

We will go back to the member.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say it is always a pleasure, but I am not sure it is, to listen to the member from Winnipeg—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Okay, it is a pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, there are things that we have been trying to get at today that we have not gotten an answer for. I know that the member is very knowledgeable, so I am hoping that he will have an answer for it. It is the number of people who would be impacted by this legislation. It is important because we have heard numbers in the hundreds of thousands, and the government seems to be unable to provide a real number. It is important because the legislation would potentially cause a lot of extra bureaucratic work in different departments, and certainly it would cost Canada money. I am curious if the member has a number of how many people this legislation would impact. If he does not, why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a number, and I do not necessarily know, even within the bureaucracy, if there would be a hard and fast number. I suspect that there might be some fairly accurate guesstimates, but I think that we might be able to flesh out some of that information once we are at the committee stage.

I suspect we would be talking about several thousands of individuals. A lot depends on the number of people who would want to put in their applications. We could have x number out there who are potential, but it does not necessarily mean that all of them would actually put in the application, so the only way that we could determine a hard number is to go ahead and anticipate. We will get answers through the passing of the legislation, and there might be some ballpark numbers to provide some level of comfort for members.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that the Liberals were very bad when it came to immigration. The massive arrivals of temporary migrants in Quebec put considerable pressure on public services. There was the non-repayment of fees relating to those temporary migrants and the Roxham Road psychodrama.

However, we are now considering a measure for which there is consensus. We discussed the bill during the previous Parliament and everyone seemed prepared to get on with it. I would like to reach out to my colleague from Winnipeg North. I would like him to tell me why the Conservatives seem to have such major reservations about a bill for which there is, after all, broad consensus.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am an optimistic guy at times when it comes to the Conservative Party. I believe that the Conservatives will have the summer to reflect on the issues that are within Bill C-3, and I hope we will see where there might be merit to making some changes so that the whole House will get behind the citizenship bill. I hope we all recognize the deadline that is before us so that, come November, we can actually respect the ruling of the court.

One of the things that Canadians responded exceptionally well to with regard to the immigration aspect of the question is that we have a Prime Minister who really has amplified the issue of immigration levels that are sustainable. I really believe that Canadians have responded well to that, and we are focused on ensuring that the sustainable numbers do protect the interests of all Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for sharing with us about his time in uniform. I am really grateful to our men and women in uniform for the rights and freedoms that we have and, as has been mentioned numerous times today, with rights and freedoms come responsibilities.

I recognize that citizenship is definitely a privilege. It is an honour. My family immigrated to Canada, and I was born and raised here, but what I find interesting is that many individuals who are my age also immigrated to Canada when they were very young; they have been in Canada their whole life and they work for Canadian businesses. When they go abroad and perhaps expand their family, those children do not have the right to citizenship.

Today, there is a lot of conversation in regard to security. If a second-generation, not-born–Canadian person is abroad and gives birth to a baby, that baby would not have any reason to have securities done. The opposition is talking about securities.

Could the member just elaborate on the importance of recognizing that a child of a Canadian citizen is a citizen?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, dealing with that second-generation child being born, to automatically rule out that child for whatever reasons ultimately does a disservice. That is the reason I tried to share my thoughts in regard to the economy and trade and how the world is a much smaller place. Having Canadian ambassadors by the thousands out and about is good for Canada in many, many different ways. I would ultimately argue it helps our lifestyle here in Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Winnipeg North on his maiden speech of this afternoon.

It is remarkable to sit here and listen to the member drone on and on, blaming Harper. It is almost as if the member had not been sitting in that exact same spot for the last 10 years as part of the government that sat and did nothing about this problem.

On a different issue, the immigration department released its report this week on misconduct and wrongdoing in the department, including rampant bribery issues, problems with misconduct, ethical lapses and privacy breaches. I wonder if the member opposite could tell us what the government is going to do about these problems within the immigration department, instead of blaming Harper.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Conservatives are a little sore on is the issue that there is more turnover in the Liberal benches than there is in the Conservative benches. We are talking about a new Prime Minister and a new administration. The Prime Minister has been a member of Parliament for two months; Pierre Poilievre was a career politician. In terms of change, and this is the reason it is important to recognize it, we have a new Prime Minister with a new administration that is going to tackle the problems that my friend just raised in the form of his question—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. The time has expired for questions and comments.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York—Durham, Housing; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, Housing.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this being my first opportunity to be on my feet for an extended time, I just want to take the opportunity to thank the great people of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for giving me the honour of coming back to the House of Commons for a third time. I am extremely proud to serve as their federal member of Parliament. I want to welcome the residents of North Glengarry, who are new to the riding. It is going to be a little bit easier for the Speaker now to say Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, without the “south” in there. We have reunited all of S, D and G, the city of Cornwall and Akwesasne.

I want to take the time while I have the floor to thank all of those who helped out in our recent campaign, from our campaign team, volunteers and door knockers to the thousands of people who took signs and, at the end of the day, those who marked and cast their ballot for me. It is something that I never take for granted and I am deeply grateful for.

I am grateful for my family and my close network of friends. I have a great big group of second mothers, as I call it, not only volunteers but family and a wonderful group of friends that support us in this unique work that we do and lifestyle that we have of, as I always say around home, getting our meals and miles in. I want to thank my family: my dad, Ed; my mum, Bea; my sister Jill; and my step-parents and step-siblings. I would be a little while listing the five stepsisters that I have, but I wanted to say how grateful I am for their love, encouragement and support.

I am pleased to rise today to add my contributions to the government's legislation, Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act of 2025. This is not the first time we have seen a bill in this form. We have actually seen this as a Senate private member's bill in a much different form, one that I think would be much more beneficial. I will get into that in my comments here over the course of the next several minutes.

I want to start by talking about the value and the importance of citizenship in this country. One of my favourite things is when we get the list, on a monthly basis, from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, of individuals in our ridings who have recently obtained Canadian citizenship. It provides us an opportunity to send them a scroll of congratulations. One of the things my staff and I are proud of is not only signing each scroll and certificate but putting a passport application in there and letting them know that they can come to our office for service, making that connection.

One of the things we want to do is to show how proud we are of the value of Canadian citizenship. It is a privilege and an honour. We have people come back in, people I have met from all over the riding, in the community, both in Cornwall and S, D and G. They will come in and appreciate that scroll and show just how proud they are to be Canadian. It is an immense privilege to have the chance to do that.

Bill C-3 will do that in a few different ways. We agree with some measures and sections. There are others that we have some concerns about, and I will get into that. The bill is a recycled version of Bill C-71 from the last Parliament that was tabled by the Trudeau Liberals. Bill C-71 came out of a Conservative private member's bill from a wonderful senator of ours, Senator Yonah Martin, that was heavily amended, Bill S-245.

I want to say that the reason we are here is that in 2023, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the first-generation limit was unconstitutional. The government chose, in this case, not to appeal it. It had the opportunity to appeal and test that in court, but it chose not to. Instead the government committed to changing the law. The court did say, and it is important in our discussions, and I am going to be talking about this, that the “substantial connection test” would be appropriate to ensure that these new citizens were actually connected to Canada. That is a major concern that we have.

Right now, the plan is a very poor test, frankly. The fact is that there is 1,095 nonconsecutive days, with no way to know how that is all done. Again, we talk about having a connection to Canada, that privilege of citizenship, that connection to Canada for an individual to have. It is certainly strained in the way the government has this written.

I want to start with some of the areas that Conservatives have found agreement on that need to be addressed. First is the provisions for adopted children. For myself, when reading about the legislation and our briefing notes and hearing other colleagues today speak about this from our side of the aisle, when it comes to the adoption of children and making it easier for Canadian parents and facilitating citizenship when they adopt children abroad, this issue is something that is worthy of merit and consideration in this legislation.

We need to make it easier in this country for parents to adopt, whether that is domestically or around the world. In this measure right now, the current process is a PR process, a permanent resident process, that parents have to go through and so forth. The bill would treat adopted children the same as natural born. I think that is a step in the right direction. When we talk about cutting red tape, this is one way we can do that, by making it easier for families to adopt. There are still a lot of processes to go through and a very stringent requirement for parents to do so, but when they adopt a child from another country and that adoption process is final, that is when they are treated the same as natural born and get that. It is an easier process as opposed to going through PR and that process, which can sometimes be complicated and difficult for families to navigate as they have gone through many other forms and processes already to go through the child custody and adoption process.

Conservatives have been on record on this before. My colleague from Saskatoon West has done a great job on this piece of legislation and on many of these topics already.

There are several quotes that came from the immigration committee, where we have been on the record on that. We stated, quote, we want to see adopted children have their citizenship respected in the same way. That means allowing them to pass it on without going through unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. We have been on the record before in this House and at committee. We will continue to do that here in the House as we go through this part of the bill.

Another part of the bill we can support, for which I am going to give two positives, if I could, is restoring citizenship for lost Canadians. We deem that to be reasonable. I want to give, as I did earlier, kudos to our Conservative senator. There is a smaller number these days, but we have a wonderful Senate caucus over on the Conservative benches there. Senator Yonah Martin's bill, Bill S-245, was designed with a clear and narrow goal: to restore Canadian citizenship to a small cohort of lost Canadians. I would say her effort was non-partisan and targeted to remedy a situation that came up nearly 50 years ago in our country.

Conservatives supported that bill at every stage to ensure the Canadians who were unfairly left out of previous citizenship reforms, including those stripped of their citizenship at age 28 under section 8 of the act, could have justice and a fair process. However, the process went through the Senate, and it was a good part of the way through the House and committee. The NDP and the Liberals then hijacked it and made several significant changes, which is where we are at today, many of which are in the form of Bill C-3.

Conservatives have said that while we support the measures I just spoke about, we cannot support the bill in the current form, because there are several other issues of challenge. It dilutes the integrity of Canadian citizenship by automatically extending it to multiple generations. Several of my colleagues have mentioned this in their comments today and have asked Liberal members to provide a number. We are unable to substantiate the number of applicants and the impact this is going to have on immigration, IRCC and the department in this country. How many more will obtain Canadian citizenship through this? It will be countless as it goes on through generation after generation. There is no number to know that. We do not know the cost on services of obtaining passports. There could be old age security and guaranteed income supplement applications and eligibility that come from it. Some of it could be retro, depending on how all this goes, so it could be very difficult in that way. Therefore, I think that is a major issue we have that we need to discuss and to have further clarification on.

One of the challenges is not only the countless generations but also the minimal substantial connection test. I mentioned the 1,000 days the government has put in the legislation. One of the key challenges is that it is nonconsecutive. It goes back, at the end of the day, to the court ruling the government referenced, which said there is space and an opportunity for the legislation to come forward to have that substantial connection test. The government has chosen for it to be 1,000 nonconsecutive days.

Conservatives are on record as saying that it needs to be consecutive days. There needs to be a substantial test. That would be a fair way to make sure that the value of Canadian citizenship is maintained by a person's having a real, legitimate, tangible, long-term connection, at even 1,000 days, but a substantial connection at that point, to Canada in obtaining their Canadian citizenship.

There is another key aspect that Conservatives have raised about the current form of Bill C-3 and about Bill C-71. We also raised it during debate on Bill S-245, when it was gutted by the NDP and Liberals, and vastly expanded to what we see now. There is no requirement for a criminal record check to take place.

We talk about public safety in our country and the need to make sure we have a stringent immigration process, a fair, secure and safe immigration process. The fact that there would not be an obligation, it would not be mandatory, to have a criminal background check is completely inappropriate. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made his comments and interventions about that. He kept saying that the Liberals are open to suggestions and to amendments. Conservatives have been on the record about some of the things we would do and what we want to do. The government has had multiple opportunities to correct the issue by putting it proactively in the bill and making a background criminal check a requirement.

That was debated in the last Parliament in Bill S-245. Conservatives did raise the issue, and we debated it substantially, while the Liberals veered in and around it. Bill C-71 was introduced under the Trudeau government as a piece of legislation, and now the same Liberal government has come back with Bill C-3, yet it has still not put it in. I can assure the House that my Conservative colleagues at the citizenship and immigration committee, if the bill does proceed to committee, will be advocating it. I am very confident that would be an amendment that would come forward.

My comment on this for Canadians is to make an observation about the lack of seriousness the Liberals have shown when it comes to public safety to ensure that Canadians who would be granted citizenship through this process are able to pass a criminal background check. The Liberals have had the opportunity to put this in. The fact that we have had to fight and fight for this, while the Liberals have continually obstructed it, says a lot about their lack of seriousness about it. We will continue to push the topic and continue to do all of this at committee, in debates here in the House, and so forth.

Another major aspect and concern, as I mentioned, is the cost of the bill, as well as the number of people who would be eligible and the countless generations. There are some unintended consequences that would happen if the flaws and issues that we see in the legislation are not addressed. A key part about this is that the numbers are very important when it comes to immigration. We have seen the Liberal government fail time and time again when it comes to the numbers in our immigration system.

We could survey Canadians, and I am sure they would say a few things. I am sure they would say that they believe that in order to obtain Canadian citizenship through this process, it would not be unreasonable in Bill C-3 to add in a provision that would require a security background check. Most Canadians would say that would be common sense.

Most Canadians would think that if the government is going to introduce legislation that would have a major impact on the number of people eligible for citizenship, passports, services and all of that support, the government would have estimates on how many people would be impacted and what the cost would be to various departments and services. People would think the government would have all of that. It has refused to provide those numbers. Most Canadians would say that they would expect parliamentarians and the government to have that information on hand, available for public knowledge and discussion, when a piece of legislation like this is coming forth.

However, when it comes to numbers, we have seen so many times how the Liberal government has broken our immigration system with reckless numbers. We have seen them, and we know that the Liberals know they have created a failed and broken system after 10 years of being in office, because they are trying to rescind many of the decisions they made. They are now trying to make major changes to the temporary foreign worker program.

They provided over a million international students with permits, with zero plans for them to be housed safely in appropriate circumstances and with affordability. I have spoken to a large number of international students at St. Lawrence College in Cornwall and in my travels in Eastern Ontario and across the country. It has been incredible the number of frustrated international students who heard for years about the opportunity to study in Canada.

Under the Trudeau government and continuing under the current government, the Liberals keep missing their targets. Even after they have realized the issues they have made and tried to cap numbers, they broke the international student system. We heard stories in the GTA of six, eight or nine people staying in a two- or three-bedroom home and sometimes paying $1,000 or more each in rent. These are ridiculous prices. We have heard of international students having to go to food banks.

The reason I raise all of this is that the government and the Liberals, when it comes to our immigration system, in numbers and in a sustainable system, have failed Canadians, new Canadians and those immigrating to Canada, very, very deeply.

We have seen it with respect to permanent residency. Members do not have to take my word for it; the government has admitted it broke the immigration system when it comes to permanent residency, because now it has rescinded and it is attempting to cap the number of permanent residents admitted into Canada and approved every year.

The Liberals have made many changes. They have actually closed the group sponsorship for refugees, which I have been personally supportive of. They have shut that program down. I have done that as a Group of Five; we sponsored a Syrian refugee family. I gave up my house and went to live in my mom's basement for six months, believe it or not.

I was part of a Groups of Five sponsorship opportunity, where we came together as a community to help a family in need abroad. They are doing very well in Canada these days. Because the government has broken the immigration system, and asylum claimants and the whole refugee system are severely under strain, it had to cancel that program in order to try to get its numbers under control.

Now we find the government proposing legislation in Bill C-3, about which we are asking what the number would be, how many this would impact, and what the impact would be on government departments and the economy in our country. We do not know.

I can just see another issue coming of the government's being woefully unprepared for the very legislation it introduces. It just speaks again of virtue signalling on its part, of breaking our immigration system and not learning from those lessons. We continue to see it time and time again.

I will give the Liberals a little bit of a compliment, but I do not want them to take it the right way. They get an A for an announcement. I have never seen people do photo ops and announcements better than the Liberals. That is their compliment. They can get the banners. They get the best backdrops. They have the podium announcement. They have people cheering. They have the news release out. It looks great, and it sounds great, full of Liberal word salad.

However, what happens is that they get an A for an announcement and an F for follow-through. Look at their tax cut today. They talk about numbers. Their big tax cut never came to fruition. It is drastically, astronomically smaller than what they said it was going to be.

The Liberals are not good with numbers. They are not good with numbers on the budget. They will not table a budget this spring. They will not tell us what the deficit is. They broke our immigration system by having numbers get out of control. We have another piece of legislation dealing with citizenship and immigration, for which they do not know the cost, they do not know their numbers and they are not doing the math. Canadians have seen this after 10 years, on repeat, over and over and time and time again.

Conservatives have said that there are measures of the bill that we will support and that we have been on the record as supporting before. However, we have some serious concerns about several of the provisions that need to be addressed.

We cannot support citizenship by descent for countless generations, we need to change the test for a substantial connections test, and we need to make sure every applicant passes a criminal background check. These are common-sense things my Conservative colleagues and I will continue to advocate for, to make sure, at the end of the day, that anybody who comes to Canada and becomes a citizen has an amazing opportunity to afford a home, to get a good job, to get health care and to enjoy what so many of us have had: a great quality of life in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really wish you would give me enough time to really go into depth in regard to the comments that were made by the member opposite.

He talks about the numbers, and there is a rationale. I could be just as, if not even more, critical of when Pierre Poilievre sat around the cabinet table and of some of the immigration decisions they made. In essence, in 2025, there would be a reduction from 500,000 to 395,000; in 2026, to 380,000; and in 2027, to 365,000. Pierre Poilievre was asked to comment, and all he said was that the Conservatives would have more “severe limits”, but then he walked away from the mic. He did not want to actually answer any questions in regard to what “severe limits” means. There are all sorts of issues in immigration.

Would the member opposite not agree, given the nature of the beginning of his speech, that there would be an advantage to having the bill go to a committee well before November?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have finally agreed with many others whom they attacked and degraded for so many years, and are saying that the immigration levels and targets they set were way too high. People came into Canada, and many became Canadians, but we did not have sustainable measures.

We made a promise, Liberal and Conservative governments for generations, decades, that if a person immigrated to Canada, they could afford to live, they could get a good job, and they could have a good quality of life, but we have seen that eroded over the course of the last 10 years. Therefore, with respect to any numbers that the Liberals cite, attacking anybody else, it is their own record for the last 10 years. They selected those numbers, which were clearly too high, because the Liberals have actually cut back and restricted them on their own, and they broke our immigration system. Their own actions, over the course of the last year, are a full admission that they failed when it came to numbers and the math on immigration.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Conservatives are using this debate on Bill C-3 to criticize the problems at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Wait times are very long. I see these problems in my constituency office as well. These are some of the most serious cases. In fact, cases are getting worse. It is a very outdated department. We agree on that, and we share the Conservatives' criticism of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

However, that is not what Bill C‑3 is about. Bill C‑3 actually seeks to respond to an Ontario Superior Court ruling and correct historical injustices against individuals.

Is my colleague casting doubt on the justice system?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the absolute opposite. I would reference the court ruling and the legislation we introduced here, and passed, to meet what was required, which does provide the opportunity for a substantial connection test. What we are saying is that 1,000 non-consecutive days is not acceptable. However, the government has the right to put that section in the legislation.

There are parts of the legislation we do support, and there are some we do not. The court ruling itself says that a substantial connection test is reasonable to do. We are saying that what the government is proposing is not reasonable. That is part of the debate, and the Bloc Québécois should be part of it. There are reasons to criticize, and I think that is one of the things we are going to be discussing in committee.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate all day, and for Canadians who are listening, part of this must be very confusing.

I would like to have something clarified. If a Canadian woman has a child in a country outside Canada, with a man from that country, the child is raised in the other country, and then the Canadian woman comes back to Canada, but 30 years from now the child decides to come to Canada, would that child be a Canadian, under Bill C-3?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the current law, I believe that, yes, that is the way it would be.

However, the challenge in the legislation is that multiple generations, the children of children who live in another country, may not have that same connection, which comes back to the substantial connection test. This could go on for multiple generations. Eventually, there would be people applying for citizenship, through the legislation being proposed by the Liberals, who would not have a substantial connection to Canada.

With respect to the 1,095 non-consecutive days, this is the question people have to ask themselves: Is that really a substantial connection test for obtaining Canadian citizenship and for having the honour and pride of doing that?

I am very proud of our Canadian citizenship and of those people who are able to join, but the big question on that is the multiple generation aspect that is going to cause a lot—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's thoroughness and professionalism, but I am wondering about something after listening to his speech.

If he is interested in the issue and in debating it, why does he not agree that the bill should be studied in committee?

Then he would have a chance to debate it and hear from experts.

Why does he want to defeat Bill C-3 at this stage?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is trust. This is not the first version of the bill that we have seen. We had Bill C-71 in the last Parliament. We also had Bill S-245, a Conservative Senate private member's bill go through, which was gutted and hijacked by the Liberals and the NDP.

I will use the example of the criminal background check's being a requirement. We have advocated for that multiple times, but we have been told, “Oh, take it to committee, and we'll talk about it.” Well, we are talking about it now, because this is about the third time we have had to raise it, unsuccessfully, to get the Liberals and NDP to agree to do all that. Therefore the issue is trust.

We could move it along to committee, but we want to take the opportunity now to raise awareness for Canadians. If the member surveyed 100 residents in her community, I am sure that a vast, overwhelming majority would say that a criminal background check is a very reasonable, common-sense approach. The government could have put that in there, and it comes down to trust. It did not do that, again, and I am not very confident that if the bill gets to committee, the Liberals are going to finally see the light on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in his well-thought-out speech, my colleague talked about trust and how the government cannot seem to tell Canadians how many people would be affected and what the cost would be. This is from Immigration Canada's own website: Support for immigration among Canadians has decreased substantially. These are the government's own words. The number of Canadians who say we're bringing in too many newcomers is up 50% in two years. The government says it is the most concern about the rate of immigration that it has seen in 20 years.

Does the member think the government making these changes in Bill C-3 without knowing how many people would be affected will add trust and confidence to the system?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not knowing their numbers, not knowing their facts, not having a plan is the definition of insanity after 10 years of the Liberal government. This is what the Liberals do. They do not plan properly, do the accounting or do the math. We just get continued chaos and disorder, as we see in our current immigration system.

I will tell members that the number one group of Canadians that I hear from as being most frustrated about our immigration system are new Canadians who just went through the system. I hear time and time again about it, whether it is labour and getting their foreign credentials recognized, the cost of living, the bureaucratic process that many members have raised here today or the archaic system that is IRCC, Immigration Canada.

After 10 years, we have lost a consensus on immigration. Sadly, the consensus is going against the Liberal record of what has happened the last number of years. We need to bring back some restrictions, as the member said. We need to have caps that are enforced and, most importantly, a compassionate system that guarantees that when a new Canadian arrives here, they have a great opportunity at a good house, job and quality of life.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that our new Prime Minister has made it very clear in every mandate letter that talks about sustainable immigration levels. The new Prime Minister understands what Canadians are talking about with the administration, and it is a part of this new administration's priorities. It is in the mandate letter. Does the member not see that as a positive thing?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been here for several years. I have to chuckle because he is saying the Prime Minister said we need sustainable immigration levels. That is acknowledging the Liberals have not had sustainable immigration levels for many years. That is the record they are going on. This is not a new government; it is a continuation of the same government. We have seen the Liberals break caps they promised to pile on. We are seeing a system just as backlogged. We are seeing just as much frustration in an archaic system when it comes to immigration. It is broken, and they cannot be trusted to fix the system that they themselves broke.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who just gave a barnburner of a speech and a clinic to everybody in this House about what is wrong with this legislation. I will try to follow that.

Before I do that, I want to thank everybody who is participating in this Parliament today, but I also want to thank everybody who got us here, specifically the volunteers in Calgary Centre who did a really good job in making sure we have good representation continuing in Calgary Centre. I will do my utmost for my constituents, to make sure their opinions and input are represented well in this House of Commons. I thank the volunteers, of course, and my family and my wife. I thank them all for everything they did to make sure we brought good government back to this side of the House to make sure we hold the government to account, because frankly, I think it is the same old government even though its members protest that it is new. It does not seem like any of its actions are new.

That leads us to today's legislation. Bill C-3 is a carbon copy of Bill C-71 from the last Parliament, and it got stuck every step of the way because of exactly what we are talking about today. There are big holes in this legislation, and the government knows that. The government has put another bill on the table that we get to spend time talking about in this House of Commons when we really should be dealing with things that are much further up the rank in importance. Frankly, we should be talking about the economy, the nation's debt or what we have to do to get projects built in this country again. However, the government is obsessed with repeating the same mistakes it made before.

I am a little surprised that this topic comes up so high on the Liberals' agenda. I was on the immigration committee last session, and this one is back here again. We always thought the Liberals were just trying to co-opt the party that used to be known as the New Democratic Party by making sure they were spinning their wheels and continuing to gain their support. Evidently not, though, because I am not sure the Liberals need the seven votes that are independent over here now because the NDP failed to maintain party status as a result of being the Liberal Party's lapdog for the last three and a half years. It is embarrassing, quite frankly, but this is a game, and this game cannot continue.

If we want good legislation, we have to put good legislation forward. It is our job, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, to make sure we bring forth the problems we see in this bill, and there are numerous problems. We have pointed them out for the last couple of years and said what the Liberals have to change.

I have listened to speeches here from the members across the way today, and it is almost like they are living in an illusion. There are talking points. They are making things up. They are given Liberal talking points and told to just go out there and say them. It does not have to be the truth. It does not have to be based on reality. It just has to be the Liberal talking points. It is all presentation and absolutely zero substance about how this is going to affect the country. I will go through this in a number of ways.

We have the government and the deputy government House leader on the other side. He may be the chief government whip or deputy government whip. I am not sure what position he has been shuffled to at this point; I apologize. Effectively, what we are talking about here is a new government that is just a change of socks from the old government at this point. This is disastrous, but it goes back a long way.

One thing we have always been clear about on this side of the House is that there was a gap in the actual admissibility of Canadians that the previous law had. That was being dealt with. I will get to that later in my speech, about how we were dealing with that, and how the government and the department of immigration were dealing with that without this broad legislation coming in to suddenly change and upend the world.

Conservatives support fixing the issue of lost Canadians. I cannot say how many times I have heard over on the other side that Conservatives are opposed to this. That is a talking point. Conservatives absolutely support the issue of lost Canadians and making sure they become Canadian citizens. We think there are around 20,000 eligible Canadians who are not eligible right now because they have fallen through the cracks of what the previous legislation said were Canadians.

Senator Yonah Martin put forward a bill to address exactly that. It was Bill S-245; that is the numbering they have over in the Senate. It took a targeted approach to make sure those wrongs were righted and that these people did have a pathway to Canadian citizenship, and it was very clear.

Bill C-3 goes way beyond fixing the holes. It goes way beyond any sanity as far as how a developed nation's immigration system is supposed to go through a process when we are bringing people into this country. It is a sweeping overhaul. It opens the door to abuse and weakens the very meaning of what it means to be a new Canadian.

First, this bill would eliminate the first-generation limit on citizenship for children born abroad. Under this bill, anyone born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, regardless of how many generations removed they are, could claim citizenship if that parent spent 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada. What does that mean? If we count the years, that is three years of, effectively, maybe visiting family three months at a time or whatever the case may be, and suddenly they are Canadian. That is less than three years, with no requirement for consecutive presence and no criminal background check. Effectively, people would be getting around what is a very important and very highly considered international requirement for becoming a citizen in almost any country. Can we get an international background check on this? Can we have some police check? No, this person would automatically be a Canadian citizen.

I do not know why that is a point of contention. Perhaps it is because breaking the system and then bringing it back in front of this House in two years' time, if the Liberals manage to push this bill through with some support, would be something that occupies the House's time. There would be some more and some more, as opposed to dealing with the issues one time, fixing everything right and getting it done.

This bill does not provide a substantial connection to being Canadian. It is a loophole. It would allow for multi-generational flow-through citizenship to people who may never have lived in Canada, paid taxes here or contributed to our society in any meaningful way. It is an open door, telling people they get to come to Canada because they have a long-term, long-ago connection, that they have, effectively, been able to passport shop and come here.

I am going to go into the last prime minister's statement about how we got here and what we are doing here. This is what people call the postnational state. I say the previous prime minister, but as I say, the new government seems no different from the old government. “Postnational state” refers to a perspective that acknowledges the diminishing importance of the nation-state, Canada, and national identity in favour of global, regional and local entities. It does not mean the end of nationalism, but rather a shift in focus and power dynamics where supranational organizations, multinational corporations and globalized culture play increasingly significant roles.

What does “supranational organizations” mean? A supranational organization is like the United Nations, many nations. We talk about multinational corporations. What is a multinational corporation? Well, Brookfield would be a multinational corporation because it has holdings in many companies. There can be a government that, maybe, has some considerable expertise in these areas and a shiny new face that was both head of a United Nations body and also head of Brookfield. This is part of what we are drifting down.

The whole thing about looking at a postnational state suggests that national identity and loyalty are becoming less central as other forms of belonging and identity gain prominence. If we are going to have an open door to coming into Canada, effectively Canadian citizenship will mean less, and I do not think Canadian citizenship means less at all. We also have postnational citizenship, the idea that citizenship is no longer solely defined by national borders and that new forms of participation and belonging are emerging.

Now, I am the great-grandchild of Canadian immigrants on one side and the great-great-great-great-grandchild of Canadian immigrants on the other side. That makes me a Canadian. I can tell everyone here that my family has contributed to building this country, as every Canadian immigrant family has all the way along. We build and grow this country, and we are proud of this country and the contributions made by everybody who comes here and makes sure they build lives here, build families here, seek opportunities here and develop this great country into what it could be. To change that, where somebody can get Canadian citizenship very easily, cheapens the work we have done, everything we have accomplished in this country and what we build here for all generations.

It would be a loophole, as we have said, and it needs to be fixed. It needs to be addressed, because if it is not addressed this time, it will have to come back to the House and get addressed another time.

What do I mean by that? This is my third term as a parliamentarian. I have seen a number of ministers of immigration, and it has been an absolute disaster. Canada went from being a country where about 350,000 people, maximum, were new immigrants per year, to 1.2 million per year, for two years. I can tell members pretty clearly that it had no connection with the reduced health care that occurred across Canada and with the reduced housing that occurred, the housing crisis and the health care crisis. Those have no connection, because we can increase demand without necessarily increasing supply, if we do not believe in actual economic rules.

However, all Canadians face this because of a more or less disastrous policy. As a result, one minister got shuffled out, and then the next minister came in and reversed many of those policies. There was an impact from that reversal. That reversal caused this: A whole bunch of people had been given expectations about what the path to becoming a Canadian would be, and all of a sudden that changed. That changed whether someone was in a post-secondary institution or just on their pathway to becoming a Canadian citizen. All of a sudden, new roadblocks were put in their way. Delays were incurred. Effectively, people were pushed out of the queue, and that is not meeting expectations.

People build their lives, and it is an onerous process to become a Canadian citizen. Sometimes it takes five to seven years. It is a long process. People have to be committed to it and want to become Canadians. It is a prize to actually get in here and contribute to this society. We are honoured to have such great people come into our country and contribute here, but an open door does not make that worth its while. We have to close that broadly opened door so we can actually have a managed system like the one we used to have.

When I was on the immigration committee, I guarantee we received anonymous phone calls from bureaucrats talking about how badly the system was being run by the party on the other side and how there was no managerial control being used. The Liberals effectively opened the doors, shortcutting a whole bunch of security processes in order to just push the number of people coming into Canada.

This is speculation, but one of the reasons is that the Liberals did not want to actually see the GDP of Canada go down, because their policies across the way were punitive to the economy. If we are just increasing the number of people, of course there is a GDP associated with new people, but if we look at the actual math, we can see the math actually shows that our GDP per capita was not increasing. There was a problem with that, because we were no longer meeting our growth as a country. Inflation was more than our GDP. That is a problem. It is a problem in any country, and we cannot just paper over it by throwing a whole bunch more people into Canada. That would be increasing one number without a quality increase.

I have always speculated, and I do not mind saying it in this House of Commons, that the reason the Liberals intentionally make a mess of this file is that they have a large constituency that profits from the middle of the immigration mess. They have all kinds of consultants, and I think that one of their previous ministers of immigration was actually from that very constituency, the ones who actually make money from legal representation, consulting and everything else. Of course, billions of dollars of taxpayer money goes off the table for what is often a very long process of getting Canadian citizenship. It is a very big constituency, and I know my colleagues on the other side of the House profit from that, because they collect money from it. It is a bit of an aberration.

Let us not forget something here. The first-generation limit was introduced in 2009. It was a response to the 2006 Lebanon crisis, where Canada spent $94 million evacuating 15,000 “Canadians of convenience”, as they were called at the time: people who held citizenship but had little or no connection to Canada. I see that, on the other side of the House, they have no hesitancy to run up the numbers in Canada; $94 million is $94 million, and we cannot repeat that again. We have to make sure that the people we are actually helping across the world when there are actual conflagrations, as there are all the time and we are expecting more and more, are actually Canadians and actually will continue to contribute to our society going forward.

As Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill, puts it, “Canadians living abroad sometimes can be a burden for the government in the sense that if we need to evacuate them, during an armed conflict, or if they come back to the country, to seek health care and so forth.” That is part and parcel of being Canadian. It is just not open to everybody all around the world. We have to make sure that we understand what it means to be Canadian, the value of Canadian citizenship.

Let me be fair. We support, again, the concept of restoring the citizenship of lost Canadians. We support, clearly, treating adopted children the same as biological children when it comes to citizenship, but these provisions were largely addressed in Senator Martin's bill, Bill S-245. They do not justify the massive overreach in Bill C-3, nor in Bill C-71.

I have a quote here, on the commitment we talked about: “Introducing tens of thousands of new [Canadians] 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.” What is the surge we are talking about here? We think there are about 115,000 people who would immediately qualify over the first five years of this program, and then continuing all the way through, because once they have a connection to Canada, their children do, etc., from children to children. This is something that is going to continue to escalate until it is addressed, until it is actually amended. In doing our job here, we look at making sure that this is the case.

There are also logistical factors. This is going to cost over $20 million just for administration, per year, as these come through our IRCC department. Again, government members do not understand the numbers, even though the Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly put the numbers on a plate for them. They will not even quote the number of how many people this is going to affect. This is just ignoring what is actually happening out there. They do have some modelling. They do have some clarity that they have been provided on this, but they do not want to see that.

I am suggesting that maybe they are doing that for a reason. They are putting some canards out here to make sure there is some debate that continues to spend time in the House of Commons, as opposed to coming up with a real bill that actually gets things done.

This arose from a court ruling, a superior court ruling in Ontario. People do not really know this, but a superior court is a lower court. It is not the Supreme Court, as one of my colleagues on the other side said this morning. It was appealable. It was not a great decision, because this is already dealt with. Although it is not a law, there is a process by which the Minister of Immigration, and one of my colleagues on this side said that this is how it is dealt with currently, can actually deal with these lost Canadians very easily with her current power. She knows that. The government knows that, but it will not admit it.

That is the problem here. The government is doing something here, but it already has tools to address it, and it is widening the whole approach to this to make sure we are doing something. Most Canadians would say, “What are you doing, and why are you doing it?” It effectively says that we are opening the door here, for all intents and purposes, for the foreseeable future and confusing everybody, causing some problems that we are going to have to address one way or another.

Canadian citizenship is not just a passport. It is a privilege, a responsibility and a bond to this country. Bill C-3 would weaken that bond. It would allow people with minimal ties to Canada to claim the same rights and benefits as those who have lived, worked and contributed here.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will be a big honour for me to attend a citizenship ceremony in my riding of Hamilton Centre on Canada Day. Definitely, I will welcome lots of my new fellow citizens.

When would the hon. member like to see this legislation in committee?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague to the House of Commons. As I told him in my speech, I have already been in committee looking at this bill. I would like to see it go to committee once it has the proper amendments put into it so it is presented as something we can debate at committee and we can discuss the pros and cons of it.

If I could make a suggestion that would get it to committee very quickly, I would ask, as the government is very good at copying previous legislation, why do the Liberals not just copy the previous bill, Bill S-245? It would solve the most immediate problems that they see as problems without opening a great swath that Canadians will not support.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre's speech was a continuation of the criticism over the government's inept handling of the immigration file. The Bloc Québécois has asked hundreds of questions on the issue, particularly about Roxham Road and about the Century Initiative and its target of 500,000 immigrants a year.

However, there was a court ruling, and we must respond to it. In his speech, my colleague said that there are big holes. Am I to assume that if the Conservatives were in power, they would appeal the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling? If so, on what grounds?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was an Ontario Superior Court judge who ruled that the existing law was unconstitutional.

I think that we should also consider the opinions of other judges who have ruled on constitutional issues since then. We should not rely on a single judge from a single court, namely the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Perhaps we should also consider the opinions of other judges who are more familiar with constitutional law.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly, both inside the House and outside, how the Liberal government has broken the immigration system and not just Canadians' trust, but our ability to serve new Canadians. Through my office, I found out that getting an initial work permit or an extension has gone from 60 days to 210 days. Spousal applications for people already here in Canada used to be one year. Now the service standard is about three years. Family reunification is now over four years.

I am wondering if my colleague would comment on the changes the government is making without even knowing how many new people will be affected and how the current wait times will be affected.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an office in Calgary that is well known for its casework in immigration, and that casework in immigration is becoming more and more backlogged. The speculation on that is that the government is, pardon my phrase, ragging the puck so it does not have to deal with these issues. It can just drag things out, and hopefully people will eventually get the hint and move on. There are very few ways it can deal with the number of excess files it has at this point in time.

I think it is going to continue to be that way. The Liberals are going to continue to bluster and will not be able to meet their own targets. How are they going to meet the timelines? The expected timelines are being extended all the time, and the government is outside its targeted guidelines repeatedly. This is something members of Parliament have to continue to give feedback on and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is that when Pierre Poilievre sat in the Conservative caucus with Stephen Harper, they cancelled the ability for someone to sponsor a mother, a father or a grandparent. They cancelled it and did not allow people to do that. They also hit the delete button on the skilled worker employment program, literally deleting hundreds of thousands of people in the system even though they spent thousands of dollars individually to get into the system.

The member makes reference to the waiting time for marriages, which is not three years, but I can tell him that under Stephen Harper, it was up to six years. If I were provided the time, I could assure the member that the immigration system today is better. We finally have a new Prime Minister who is committed to not only improving the system, but ensuring the long-term stability of the program.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that member continually brings up what happened 15 years ago, and then he spouts it off as if it is actually fact. He talks about reality. I am not sure that member recognizes reality. He talks about “cancel and delete”, yet we talk about the number of Canadians who were brought in during the Stephen Harper years. It increased substantially, and that member does not really seem to want to grasp that.

Every government has challenges with this file. Until the Justin Trudeau government, our immigration system was renowned as professional around the world. It no longer is, and that is for a reason. The Liberals messed it up.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under the Trudeau government, there was indeed some abuse in terms of migration, and Quebec paid the heaviest price. Most of the temporary migrants who were entering the country and putting pressure on the system came to Quebec. The federal government owes Quebec a considerable debt, but we are never going to get that money back.

There is a general consensus on the bill before us. We had these debates in the previous Parliament. Why are my Conservative colleagues being so stubborn about keeping this bill from being passed?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague because I was going to respond in French. However, he used the word “stubborn”, so I think I am going to have to respond in English.

Our job here is as His Majesty's loyal opposition. Members know that. There are gross holes in this legislation and the member knows that. He knows what happened at Roxham Road, and he knows how the Quebec government had to twist the federal government's arm after three years of Roxham Road in order to stop the flow of people who were just taking advantage of that slippage, where the border is not a border but the border is where there is an office with a border. That is ridiculous. That is a judge who does not know what they are doing. That is a government that does not know how to address a dumb situation.

Something we need to address here going forward, very clearly, is proper legislation, and this is anything but proper legislation. I do not think it is being stubborn for us to do the work that Canadians expect of us in order to get good legislation passed in the House.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to get a number from the government today of how many people this might impact. We have the PBO number. It was 115,000 people, so it is at least that many people or it could be more. What are the ways in which that many new citizens might impact Canada when it comes to the work that needs to be done in the bureaucracy and the cost to Canadians for things like old age security and other things?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked me that question because I am often focused on this country's economy. The number that the PBO came up with is about $20.4 million per year in additional administration costs to get this program across, if it is approved in this way. That escalates going forward, of course, and that means more cost to Canadians. We can think about that as it continues down, with children upon children upon children. Eventually, we are going to have to deal with this, and the sooner the better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation this evening here in the House.

After 10 years of the tired Liberal government, our immigration system is broken. I say that somewhat with a heavy heart because I look across at my colleagues and I know they like to be referred to as a new government. It is anything but new. What the Liberals have done is they have played musical chairs with their front bench. Most of them are the same people, just in different positions. The same goes for the parliamentary secretaries; they are the same people.

The system is broken, obviously for even a better reason than just them playing their musical chairs. Over the past 10 years of the Trudeau Liberals, because that is who they are, they have had seven ministers of citizenship and immigration. I am sure that is a historic first if we look back in the history of Parliament. They have had seven. Basically, they have not been able to find a competent person to handle the file, which has resulted in the dilemma we have today.

They often refer to the previous Conservative government with the great former prime minister Stephen Harper. We had a plan. I am the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship and immigration in the Harper government. We had a plan.

Our plan was predicated on the following: 65% of newcomers coming to Canada would have to come through our economic streams. This would be someone who had some working knowledge of either of the two official languages of the country and had a skill or a profession, something they could do where they could contribute to their families and to Canadian society from day one when they arrived in Canada. We had understandably set aside 25% for family reunifications, recognizing the importance of keeping families together, and we had set aside 10% for compassionate streams such as asylum seekers and refugees.

In all of that, we had a reasonable and sustainable number of people we would welcome into Canada on an annual basis. In came the Trudeau Liberals, these Liberals we are now facing across the aisle in their third minority government in a row, and out goes this plan and in comes helter-skelter, as far as managing the entire immigration file is concerned.

Today's asylum backlog, for example, stands at over 280,000 people as of March 31 of just this year, which translates to a four-year wait for asylum backlog. These are people who are waiting to get a response. Almost 29,000 people have failed to appear for their removal proceedings, and they cannot be located in the country, because there is no system in place for that to happen.

This is what happens when we have no plan, no control and no semblance of organization on how we should manage a ministry of the Crown. The government planned to cap study permits in 2024, and then blew right past their cap by over 30,000 people. In fact, in 2024, if we add all the streams together, over a million people came to Canada at a time when we have a housing crisis, we have a job crisis, our young people cannot find work and there are 1,500 encampments just in the province of Ontario alone. People cannot find a place to live.

I would argue that when we welcome people to our country, we should provide them with opportunities, opportunities like my parents had when they came here from Greece. When they came here, they worked hard. They got a good paycheque, which afforded them the opportunity to buy a home and grow their family.

Those opportunities and that Canadian dream, under these Liberals, have gone completely out the window. These Liberals have eroded the trust in our immigration system, and under their watch, wait times for application processing is completely out of control. Now, they want to add to the chaos.

I believe being a Canadian citizen is one of the greatest privileges one can have. Canadians died for the rights and privileges afforded to our citizens. Some of us may take that for granted on a daily basis, but 66,000 brave men lost their lives in the First World War, 44,000 brave soldiers lost their lives in the Second World War, 516 people lost their lives in the Korean effort, another 159 people lost their lives in Afghanistan and 29 in Cyprus and other efforts around the world. They lost their lives for those rights and privileges that we have today, and we need to take that seriously.

We have a responsibility, when we bestow that Canadian citizenship, that huge privilege, on somebody. It means something. We do not water that down.

Canadians have the right to vote. I would argue that people who have a right to vote should have contributed or contribute to this country, as many of our families do and as Canadians do from coast to coast to coast on a daily basis.

Now, Bill C-3, the bill we are discussing, weakens Canadian citizenship by eliminating that first-generation limit, allowing parents born abroad to pass citizenship to their children born abroad, generation after generation, as long as one parent has spent 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada prior to the birth of the child. That does not mean 1,095 days in the last five years, which is the standard today for a permanent resident to become a Canadian citizen. It is just 1,095 days in their life.

A student who came to Canada, studied, spent three years here, obtained a Canadian citizenship, left the country and grew a family somewhere else can bestow that citizenship to their child born in that country, in perpetuity, to grandchildren and so forth, without ever having lived another day in our country. That does not make sense to Canadians who worked hard to earn that right of citizenship.

Like many colleagues in the House, I have attended citizenship ceremonies. What a huge privilege it was and what an emotional experience it was for me to be there because it brought me back to thoughts of my parents when they came to this country. It is always meaningful for the people who are being bestowed with citizenship on that day. There is nothing more emotional for me in speeches that I have given on the subject, than that day when a citizenship judge affords me the opportunity to say a few words. My closing comment, when I look at the crowd of 30, 40 or sometimes 50 people obtaining Canadian citizenship that day, are, “Welcome to the Canadian family”, knowing very well that those folks had come here, worked hard, done all of the right things, waited their time and earned the right and privilege of Canadian citizenship.

We should not look at this legislation without considering the importance and the value of Canadian citizenship. The government has not completed a cost analysis, nor has it told Canadians the number of new citizens that Bill C-3 would create or the cost to taxpayers, especially in health care, pensions and so forth. When we ask Liberals the questions, they say that they do not know, that they are not certain and that they cannot put a number on it.

Any other time, the Liberals would look at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report and recite those numbers with glee. This time, the Liberals have conveniently decided they are not going to refer, at all, to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has said that this is going to affect some 115,000 people, at the very least, and initially cost Canadians $21 million. Why the Liberals are choosing to ignore the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis is perplexing, to say the least. I am sure the Speaker is having difficulty understanding the reasons why as well, because no reasonable person could come up with a logical answer to that question.

Worse, there would be no criminal check required for new citizens. The government requires criminal background checks for other immigration processes, so why would it not want to do that for this stream of people who they are suggesting come in through Bill C-3. It makes no sense. I would argue that a primary responsibility of a responsible government of any country is the safety and the security of its citizens.

Canadian families need to know that when they take their children to school, to a shopping mall, to a community centre or to a park, the people walking beside them have been properly vetted and are law-abiding residents and citizens of this country. However, the bill does not provide for that background check.

Not vetting individuals coming into the country raises a lot of questions, but it is in line with the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies that we have seen over the years. The Liberals appear really comfortable with potentially allowing people convicted of serious crimes such as rape, murder and terrorism to gain citizenship and have the opportunity to be in our communities. As bizarre as that sounds, if I were a Liberal member of Parliament, God forbid, I would ask, “Why would I not want to do a background check on people coming into the country?”

A 30-year-old who has never lived here before but is the son of somebody who has been out of the country would find out that the Liberals have passed a bill, and they could automatically become a Canadian citizen. They could come to Canada as a Canadian citizen with no background check. That is amazing. That does not make sense to me, and I can assure members that it does not make sense to my constituents of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. I represent one of the more diverse communities in the country, and I am positive it does not make sense to Canadians anywhere in this beautiful country of ours.

The people I feel most for are the immigrants who went through the traditional immigration processes. These immigrants went through vetting, proved they had a connection to Canada and did the hard work to acquire the privileges and rights bestowed upon them as Canadian citizens. Under the bill before us, their citizenship would become weaker.

To summarize some of these points, the government cannot tell us how many new citizens the bill would create. It cannot tell us the cost. Of course, the Liberals do not want to talk about cost. They recently put through a throne speech and have decided to spend half a trillion dollars without presenting a budget in Parliament so we can debate and discuss it.

Speaking of debating and discussing, I have heard Liberal members come up to the microphone, stand up in their spot and tell us that if we have amendments to Bill C-3, we should bring them to committee. They appear to be saying that they are amenable to looking at some reasonable amendments to the bill. Well, we can be forgiven for questioning the veracity and, really, the honesty of those comments because of a previous rendition of the bill. This is not a new bill. The Liberals purport to be a new government, but this is a cut-and-paste bill. This is Bill C-71 cut and pasted into Bill C-3.

To new members of Parliament elected on all sides of the House, the Liberals are saying, “Never mind, just take our word for it. It's good because we discussed it in the previous Parliament.” That makes no sense because that legislation died when Parliament was stopped and then reached its end of life to go into an election. Members of Parliament should have a right to review it.

When one of those previous renditions, Bill S-245, came up for debate, there were no fewer than 40 amendments moved by Conservative members, all of which the Liberal-NDP coalition of the day voted against. They did not want to consider any one of the 40, and now they want us to look at this bill and say, “We'll take it to committee and consider it, and thank you for allowing us to present some amendments.” Well, we know the record of my dear friends across the aisle on amendments, and we know how much consideration they will give them.

Current citizens who were born in Canada or immigrants who went through other processes to become citizens would definitely have their citizenships weakened with this proposed legislation. There is no plan to process the new applications in an already backlogged, broken system, and the government does not know the scale of the impact or, if they do know, are not willing to share it with Parliament. The question is simply this: Why are the Liberals doing this? Quite frankly, I am not surprised.

Over the last 10 years, the Liberals have continuously weakened Canada's immigration system and how we are perceived on the world stage. It is completely irresponsible to allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants into Canada, given the current challenges in the housing market. In fact, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, in its May 2025 report, linked record immigration to worsening housing affordability. We know what that means in all of our communities across the country, irrespective of whether people want to stand up in this place and try to defend that somehow.

Taxpayers have spent billions of dollars housing asylum seekers in hotels. The CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, acknowledges that we need some 3.5 million more homes by 2030 to provide shelter for people who are already here. Here we are wanting to add to that, with a number we do not know. The government is not telling us. It is adding hundreds of thousands of new people into a housing market that is already undersupplied, overpriced and unfair to all who are trying to afford housing, especially our young people who have done everything right and cannot afford to buy a home in the community they grew up and would love to grow a family in.

The job picture also looks a lot less rosy. Our youth cannot land entry-level jobs. Youth unemployment is at 20% in some parts of the country. Unemployment rose to 7% overall in May, the highest rate since the pandemic. Forecasts show that Canada may shed another 100,000 jobs by the fall. The government is adding hundreds of thousands of new people into a job market that is already at its weakest point in years. It is simply reckless.

The Liberal government must create an environment in which new immigrants and Canadians can succeed. That is not happening currently. I have heard stories from my riding in which immigrants who came here 10 years ago are now considering leaving Canada, because the promise they were made has been broken by the Liberal government.

The bill also touches upon children who are adopted internationally. That is something very close to me and very dear to my heart. Back in 1993, my wife and I flew to Guatemala City, where we had the honour and the privilege of meeting our children for the first time. My family came together by something called the miracle of adoption. Therefore, I applaud that the bill recognizes that those children who come into the country will become Canadian citizens. Nothing felt more unwieldy to my wife and me when we arrived in Canada and had to wait a period of time before our infant children, a biological brother and sister, could become Canadian citizens. This bill will correct that, which I applaud.

As my colleagues on this side of the House have said previously, I am glad it is resolving the issue of lost Canadians as well.

It has been 10 years, and our immigration system is in shambles. The Liberals are welcoming hundreds of thousands of new immigrants in a housing crisis, a health care crisis and a deteriorating job market. What is worse, the basics, such as processing applications, are taking much longer, and backlogs continue to persist. The government promises to fix issues that continue to be broken. It is just not fulfilling its promises.

In the last minute I have, I want to say that it is just more of the same. The Liberals want to pass a bill that would add to that chaos, of course, cost taxpayers more and weaken everyone's citizenship.

Only common-sense Conservatives will restore order and integrity to our immigration and citizenship system by tightening requirements, clearing backlogs, streamlining processing, respecting the will of the folks who want to come to Canada through normal immigration channels, welcoming them and giving them every opportunity to succeed in our great country.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the tail end of his comments, the member talked about Conservatives having the ability to restore order. There was a great deal of disorder when I was the critic for immigration. I recall that the member and I were sitting around the table at the immigration committee, and I had the opportunity to highlight, in a previous question, some of that disorder.

However, there is good news for individuals following the debate. I would suggest two quick points.

One is this. The reason we are having the debate today is an Ontario Superior Court decision. That decision has to be respected sometime in November of this year, which means we have to pass some form of legislation.

The other aspect I would highlight is that our new Prime Minister, with the administration, has made it very clear that we are working toward sustainable immigration levels. That deals with both aspects.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the Superior Court decision.

[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.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the impact of the immigration system on constituency offices, so before I ask my question, I would like to commend the invaluable Christiane Dupuis, who has helped constituents navigate the immigration process. Now she is now retiring. I want to extend my best wishes to dear Christiane on her retirement. I look forward to celebrating with her as the summer holidays approach. I want to thank her for helping the people who have chosen to settle in Granby and Shefford.

That being said, like my Conservative colleagues, I see problems with the immigration system. Nonetheless, we think Bill C‑3 is a step in the right direction for the Citizenship Act. Much more must be done, of course, including a complete review of the act.

Nonetheless, this was our fourth extension. The judge has set a new deadline for the fourth time: November 20. Has my colleague analyzed the impact of not complying with this decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Christiane Dupuis for her good work in helping the member in her work. I wish her every success in her future endeavours.

It is important that we address the issue of the court decision. What we are saying here today is that we hope our colleagues in the Bloc and, quite frankly, in the Liberal Party will join us in ensuring that the piece of legislation we put through this House addresses the important issues we have raised here today.

We are going to be proposing amendments at committee, for sure, and we would like those amendments to be considered very seriously by our friends from the Bloc and our friends from the Liberal Party, because at the end of the day, we are here to provide good legislation that addresses issues and resolves problems for Canadians. We need to work together toward that. The government needs to listen to those amendments and come along with us as we implement them.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech on this bill reminded me of a citizenship ceremony that took place a few years ago in Deux‑Montagnes, in my riding. When people get their citizenship, it is a very emotional moment. People are happy to become Canadians.

What does my colleague think of this bill? Does he not think that it should be referred directly to committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, citizenship ceremonies are very emotional, as I said in my speech, and they are very important in the lives of the folks who are obtaining their citizenship on that day.

I certainly believe that this bill needs to be studied a lot further. I hope the member opposite will speak to her colleagues in the Liberal Party to seriously consider amendments that we will be putting forward for this legislation, because as it stands right now, we cannot support the legislation. We agree with some of the points, as I said. We agree with recognizing lost citizens and we agree with adopted children obtaining their citizenship right away. However, we do not agree and will never agree with giving people who are not born in this country the right to perpetual Canadian citizenship without having contributed to our country.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing a fantastic job.

I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech today, especially the heartwarming tale of his adopted children.

The Liberal government itself even admits that it has broken the immigration system. Its own immigration website states that concern about immigration is at the highest level it has been in two decades. The government notes that it is tied to concerns about the impact on housing and public services.

Considering the government does not even know how many people this bill would affect, does my colleague think that it would increase or alleviate concerns about how badly the Liberals have bungled the immigration file?

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

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that the legislation, as it has been presented by the Minister of Immigration, would make things a lot worse if passed. It would continue to get worse as long as government members keep playing musical chairs in the tired Liberal government. There have been seven different immigration ministers in a 10-year period.

The government is not looking at the file seriously and this is, I would argue, a very important file for Canadians across the country, especially newcomers and immigrants who have worked so hard to obtain that right to come into our country and have done everything in the right way to obtain their citizenship. This legislation would continue to exacerbate the problems and make them a lot worse than they are today.

We are here to hold the government to account. Hopefully, the government will come on board with us to make this a better piece of legislation so that we can pass it through the House unanimously at some point.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have spent all day criticizing the broken immigration system, and that is fair enough. We feel the same way and agree with their criticism. However, was it worth spending an entire day debating the principle of a bill that basically poses few problems? My colleague believes so.

Given that my colleague identified some things that he agreed with and others that he did not, are we to understand that, when it comes time to pass this bill in principle, the Conservatives would be against sending this bill to committee and would rather appeal the Superior Court ruling?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, we want to study the bill. We want to propose amendments to the bill that would make it a better piece of legislation. We have spent one day on it. It appears that the member has an issue with our spending all day on it. I would argue that it is not enough because the long-term ramifications of passing through a bad piece of legislation like this could be catastrophic for the immigration system and for Canada.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

As we debate Bill C-3 today, we go back to the basics of what it means to be Canadian. We are not a postnational state, as my colleagues across the aisle would love us to believe. Canadians exist from coast to coast to coast. There are a great variety of experiences that make up our Canadian identity, but they are bounded within our great landmass. Canadian citizenship means something. It has weight in this world. For it to continue to have weight, there must be a cost. Nothing that is free continues to have any worth, any weight or any merit.

The Conservatives want nothing more than to preserve and increase the value of Canadian citizenship. We value and respect what it means to be a Canadian. The basic cost that Conservatives want to maintain in the price of Canadian citizenship is for there to be a continued connection to Canada. Unfortunately, my dear colleagues across the aisle do not value their peers who live coast to coast to coast. My most esteemed colleagues across the aisle would rather cheapen the value of our Canadian identity by siding with Canadians of convenience.

Let me repeat that concept one more time but more slowly: Canadians of convenience. Are these our brothers and sisters in arms? When push comes to shove in our fracturing global order, can we count on these Canadians of convenience to advance our national interests alongside us, or are they just people who would love to have a Canadian passport?

Bill C-3 would cheapen what it means to be a Canadian, and it would extend citizenship by descent beyond the first generation. In 2009, we, the Conservatives, enforced a first-generation limit. However, under Bill C-3, any person born abroad to a Canadian citizen who has also been born abroad would receive Canadian citizenship. In other words, the children of children born outside of Canada would be considered Canadian.

Before we critique this, it is important to note that the Liberals have made a conditional requirement of what they call a “substantial connection”. This requirement would allow parents to pass Canadian citizenship onto their children generation after generation as long as one parent spends only 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada prior to the birth of the child.

That is just three years of non-consecutive time in Canada, and there is no need for a criminal record check. Merely three years of non-consecutive time is absolutely too low a standard to establish anyone as a fellow Canadian. At the absolute minimum, the three years should be consecutive and there should be a criminal record check. Without these absolute minimum standards, there can be no progress on this bill.

The goal of the Conservatives is simple: We want to foster generations of Canadians with a national spirit and who feel themselves to be truly Canadian. There is no way to do this unless they live here with us as fellow Canadians for some degree of time. This is why their presence in Canada has to be sustained and consecutive so that they live, learn and work beside their fellow Canadians.

If Bill C-3 passes in its current state, how is it fair to legitimate immigrants who spend years building lives here, from coast to coast to coast, when the Liberal government is ready to give citizenship to people who have never even lived in Canada for a sustained period? The government has cheapened what it means to be Canadian. We will all suffer for it.

With that established, let us quickly address what Bill C-3 could be, if it was precise and focused. The core historical problem we should be addressing is what has been framed as “lost Canadians”. These are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it, or thought they were entitled to Canadian citizenship but never received it. This was the original issue Conservatives gave support for and for which we will continue to give support. Historically, citizenship has been revoked due to issues like restrictions on dual citizenship or a child not being registered after being born abroad.

Section 8 of the Citizenship Act says all individuals born abroad to Canadian parents after February 14, 1977, had to apply to reinstate their Canadian citizenship before they turned 28 years old. In short, Conservatives wanted to restore citizenship to individuals who had lost it due to non-application for retention or application rejections under the former Citizenship Act, section 8. Some individuals lost citizenship at the age of 28. These generally included people born as the second generation abroad between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, who turned 28. This was also the original content of Conservative Senator Yonah Martin's private member's bill, Bill S-245, which plays a more direct role in addressing concerns about the first-generation rule.

What I want to emphasize is how specific the problem was and how tailored the solution could be. What we have instead, with Bill C-3, is the use of this originally narrow problem of lost Canadians to spearhead broad, sweeping changes to the fundamentals of Canadian citizenship. Conservatives truly, fully support the provisions that relate to lost Canadians, but we cannot allow the pretext of solving the lost Canadians issue to lead to a sweeping change in what it means to be Canadian.

With this little historical background out of the way, let us return to considering Bill C-3 as a whole. The debate on Bill C-3 boils down to one simple question: What does it mean to be a Canadian? Ultimately, do we truly value what it means to live from coast to coast to coast, or does place have no meaning?

I have often heard culture defined as a way of life, and a way of life is something learned by doing, learned beside people who are doing it. In this way, citizenship is like a trade, and it requires apprenticeship. To apprentice as a Canadian, one must live in Canada beside Canadians and learn a way of life over several consecutive years.

However, in the current state of Bill C-3, the Liberals want to serve Canadians of convenience who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society. Bill C-3 serves Canadians of convenience, but does it serve Canadians?

Only common-sense Conservatives will restore order to immigration and citizenship. We will restore integrity to citizenship by tightening requirements, because this is how we preserve the value of what it means to be Canadian.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑3 is intended to right a past wrong. In 2009, Stephen Harper's Conservative government passed legislation limiting citizenship by descent to the first generation. This has had significant repercussions. Individuals with genuine ties to our country have been excluded. It has also negatively affected Canadians whose children were born abroad.

In 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down these provisions, and we did not appeal that decision, given the unacceptable consequences these provisions had had.

Will my colleague work with us and support this bill, which will right a past wrong?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague responded earlier with the same answer, which is that we will support the bill with the amendments we are proposing to address specific issues and to not broaden the overall Citizenship Act to allow generations and generations abroad. If these people really have intentions of being Canadian, it is easy for them to do so and still apply those rules. To my colleague, I say the Conservatives will support it with the amendments we are proposing.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague. Maybe he was not here in the last Parliament, but the government's management of immigration was mediocre.

The influx of migrants into Quebec placed tremendous pressure on our health care system and social services, but Quebec was not paid back in full. Would my colleague not agree that this is a gross injustice?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely part of the problem. We have been asking the Liberal government, in terms of numbers, how many people would be impacted, and the answer is that the Liberals do not know. We asked how much it would cost us, and they do not know. Again, how is it going to impact each of the provinces, including Quebec? They obviously do not know that answer either.

What is the government doing putting a bill forward without having prepared for the consequences and impact of such a bill being implemented?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the member's speech. In particular, at the start of it, he was talking about the issue of Canadians of convenience. When I meet with people back home, especially people who have immigrated to Canada, they had to work hard. They had to prove they were solvent and had the means to be able to be a contributing member of society.

When we look at the bill, we see what the Liberals are doing with what it means to become a Canadian citizen. They have really cheapened what it takes to become a Canadian citizen. I am just wondering if my colleague has any thoughts on what the Liberals are doing with the bill in really cheapening what it takes and what it means to become Canadian.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do, per my speech. It used to mean something to be a Canadian, to be carrying that Canadian passport and feeling safe around the world, carrying that passport and knowing that it is respected. By cheapening this passport, it becomes almost like something we could get from online sales.

As I said in my speech, what does it mean to be a Canadian, to understand and know our values, to have lived with Canadian colleagues and friends in Canada and to understand our culture and understand our way of life? We would be giving out and granting citizenship for generation after generation of people, some of whom perhaps, as the colleague across the aisle admitted, may not even have the intention of wanting to be Canadian. This legislation would allow them to do so.

In terms of the other point that the member raised, very rightly, when we talk about the broken immigration system, we have a lot of people who came into the country under the pathways program, especially over—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Today, that honour comes with a sense of duty to speak clearly and seriously about the need to uphold the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

Let me begin by saying clearly and unequivocally, Conservatives support the court's decision in Bjorkquist v. Canada. Conservatives believe in the rule of law, and Conservatives believe that unjustifiable discrimination has no place in Canadian citizenship policy.

The court found the first-generation limit to be unconstitutional, and I respect that judgment, but Bill C-3 is not simply a thoughtful response to a court decision. It is a wholesale rewrite of citizenship policy that goes far beyond the scope of the ruling.

This bill is not about justice. It is about judgment. In this case, the government's judgment is deeply flawed, stretching far beyond what most Canadians would consider to be reasonable.

Let us talk about what is in the bill. Under Bill C-3, Canadian citizenship could be automatically passed down for multiple generations born outside of Canada, so long as just one parent has spent just 1,095 non-consecutive days, or three years of non-consecutive days, at any time in their life, on Canadian soil.

As an example, it would allow the 50-year-old child of a 75-year-old who left Canada at age 3 to claim Canadian citizenship even if that 50-year-old had never been to Canada. Let us be clear, that is not a strong connection to Canada. That is not growing up here, working here, paying taxes here, or raising a family here. It is not even vacationing here.

There are many other ridiculous examples. Vacations, work trips and conferences would all count. Getting stranded in Canada while in transit from one country to another because a snowstorm grounds their connecting flight would count as a night. I could go on.

The bottom line is that this bill would make a number of people with minimal or no exposure to Canada eligible for Canadian citizenship ad infinitum, and IRCC could not tell the committee how many people this could be. Unlike many of the programs Canadians have to navigate, there would be no proof required. If one were willing to swear an affidavit that their parent spent 1,095 days here, the government would take their word for it. No boarding passes, holiday pictures, or receipts for poutine or perhaps maple-cured salmon would be required. What could go wrong?

Members do not need to take my word for it. Let us hear from some of the experts. We have heard repeatedly from experts with concerns about the bill. This is not actually a partisan issue. It is a policy issue. It is about what it means to be Canadian. It is about what a substantial connection is. It is about how we spend the half trillion dollars the Liberal government is proposing we approve without a budget. It is about whether people with no connection to Canada can suddenly discover their parents' Canadian roots when times get tough or they decide they would like to live somewhere else.

We have a refugee program, and we have an immigration program. This is neither. This bill does an end run around those programs and would allow an ill-defined, undetermined number of people to jump the line without having to prove their value or show their work.

We support correcting past injustices. We support restoring citizenship to real lost Canadians, those caught in the bureaucratic net of outdated provisions, such as the former section 8 of the old Citizenship Act. These are people who were raised in Canada, have lived their lives as Canadians and who were denied the rights and privileges of citizenship due to paperwork or legislative gaps. They are Canadians in every meaningful sense, and they deserve to be treated as such.

We also support the provisions regarding adopted children, which would ensure children adopted abroad, like those of my colleague who spoke earlier, are treated equally under the law and are able to pass on citizenship in the same way as biological children.

This is a matter of fairness and equality. We have always backed those provisions, and we continue to support them now, but what we cannot and will not support is a system that waters down the meaning of citizenship and creates an unmanageable administrative burden on already strained government services.

Let us look at the numbers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that Bill C-3 could immediately add about 115,000 new citizens, most of whom do not live in Canada, yet the government has provided no estimate for how many could be added in the long term as new generations become eligible. These new citizens would be eligible for services like old age security, GIS and health services, yet many of them would never have paid a single dollar of income tax in Canada.

The government has admitted that it has not completed a proper cost analysis. In committee hearings, IRCC officials acknowledge that they simply do not know how many people the bill would affect or what the long-term financial implications would be. That is not good governance or responsible legislation; it is just recklessness, and it is particularly troubling given the state of our public services today: Canadians are waiting weeks for passports, months for citizenship applications and years for permanent residency; housing is unaffordable; and health care is stretched to the brink. Resources are finite, and the bill would do nothing to prioritize those already in Canada who need help.

This is the bottom line: The so-called “substantial connection test” in the bill is vague and inadequate, 1,095 non-consecutive days can be spread across decades and attested to without proof, there is no requirement for a criminal record check and there is no clear plan on how IRCC would verify or process the influx of new applicants.

Conservatives are proposing simple, reasonable amendments to the bill: Make the 1,095 days consecutive, and disqualify those with serious criminal records. These are common-sense safeguards, and the government should accept them and adopt them as its own, as they have with many of our other policies.

The Court gave the government a mandate to act but not to overreach. What Canadians need, expect and deserve is a balanced approach, one that upholds the charter and fixes past wrongs but preserves the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 does not strike that balance in its current form.

Canadian citizenship is an incredible thing. It is more than just a legal status; it is a profound connection to one of the most free, diverse and democratic nations in the world. It reflects a shared commitment to values that define Canada: respect for human rights, the rule of law and pluralism.

For millions, becoming a Canadian citizen is the fulfillment of a dream, and for those of us lucky enough to be born into it, it is a privilege that we should never take for granted. The bill would create a slippery slope where citizenship would no longer be tied to a meaningful presence or a substantial connection to Canada. It risks transforming Canadian citizenship from a living commitment into a legacy entitlement, something passed down with little or no connection to our land, our laws or our culture.

It is worth remembering why the first-generation limit was introduced in the first place. After the 2006 crisis in Lebanon, Canada evacuated 14,000 citizens at a cost of $94 million. Thousands returned to Lebanon shortly thereafter. That experience led to the realization that citizenship must come with responsibilities, not just rights. That is why a Conservative government enacted the first-generation limit in 2009, to restore integrity to our system. Bill C-3 goes far beyond correcting the unintentional oversights of that policy that were properly identified by the courts. It unacceptably rewrites the framework of Canadian citizenship in a way that undermines its integrity, dilutes its value and ignores the need for a balanced and principled approach.

Let me close by saying this: Conservatives believe in a strong, fair and principled citizenship regime, and that is what we would like to see in the bill.

The House resumed from Thursday, June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course it would be hard to begin this new parliamentary session without wishing everyone, including those watching at home, a warm welcome back. The summer was particularly beautiful in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I think it was important for many of us to practice self-care after the year we had. That did not prevent some family trips, including to the Quebec Games, and a trip to the north shore for us. I think it was important to do some self-care and I hope everyone was able to do that.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the passing this summer of two of our icons. Léandre Bergeron is known for his bread, but also for the whole encyclopedia representing the core values of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Quebec. I want to pay tribute to him. There was also the great painter Norbert Lemire, my great-uncle, who was a significant figure in my life. If my colleagues ever have the opportunity to see one of his paintings, I think they will find his style very unique.

I am very pleased to be back in the House to speak to Bill C-3, which aims to correct an injustice affecting many children born abroad to Quebec and Canadian parents. This is one bill that makes sense to me. It will enable these lost Quebeckers and Canadians to regain their citizenship. This bill reponds a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court, which invalidated provisions of the Citizenship Act that violated certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Say, for example, that a Canadian couple works for the government abroad and has a child in another country. Let us say they name her Caroline. The law says that even if Caroline grows up in Canada, if she gets a job abroad and has a child, that child cannot be a Canadian citizen. The situation is a bit complicated and it does not need to be. However, it shows that even though these situations are quite rare, they are still possible. It is not right, and it needs to be corrected.

This bill rectifies that situation by allowing the transfer of citizenship if the parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, in other words, that they have lived in Canada continuously or intermittently for a period of 1,095 days, or three years. This type of change is helpful, particularly for many diplomats who may have to live abroad while representing Quebec or Canada. This bill corrects an injustice that could have affected them down the road.

What is more, Bill C-3 also rights injustices for other lost Canadians, such as those born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981. At that time, as a result of amendments made to the Citizenship Act in 1977, individuals who wished to obtain Canadian citizenship by descent had to apply for it before the age of 28. Whoever failed to apply would lose their citizenship. This little-known requirement meant that some individuals lost their citizenship. Imagine how a person would feel if they went to apply for a passport only to find out that they were no longer a Canadian citizen, even though their family has been living here for generations. Of course, that is a rather dramatic example, but these individuals became stateless and had to go through a complicated process to prove that they are, in fact, Canadian.

The other change introduced by this important bill is to allow Canadian women who married non-Canadian men before 1947 to regain their Canadian citizenship. In fact, these women lost their citizenship when they married. Their situation is very similar to the experience of many indigenous women, an important issue that Parliament studied in the past before restoring the status of indigenous women who decided to marry non-indigenous men. In a way, it was characteristic of the sexist policies of that time. Bill C‑3 corrects an unacceptable situation and takes a step forward toward restoring gender equality, a value that I and Bloc Québécois members in this House hold in the highest regard.

The last group of people to have their status corrected under Bill C‑3 are children born abroad, who were adopted but whose parent died, and who were subsequently denied citizenship. Simply put, these changes are beneficial, now and in the future, in helping to address absurd situations arising from various oversights at different points in time. This bill rectifies those situations.

The Bloc Québécois believes it might be worthwhile to overhaul this legislation in the future to clarify some of its provisions, since it is still causing real headaches. I would remind the House that this is the fourth change that has been made in the past 25 years to correct the injustices against many people who have lost their citizenship because of obscure, unfair or discriminatory rules.

For example, in the 1947 legislation, in a clause that has since been corrected, Quebec citizens born abroad were required to spend their 24th year in Canada. In other words, if they arrived here at age 25, they lost their citizenship. The second update to this legislation was made 30 years later. Some changes have made it easier to access citizenship, but, again, some aspects of this legislation have created awful situations, including the ones I mentioned earlier, where Quebeckers and Canadians who obtained their citizenship by descent had to apply to keep their status before age 28. This part of the legislation was corrected in 2009, but only for Canadians who were not yet 28 at the time. Today, this bill will correct that major omission.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work of someone with whom I used to work closely. I am talking about my former parliamentary assistant and, more importantly, the former member of Parliament for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Meili Faille. She and the Bloc Québécois undertook the enormous task of compiling an inventory of problems relating to citizenship in the 2000s. Under her leadership, the top experts from across Canada worked on those two studies, which many of my colleagues have cited during the proceedings. We must also highlight the work of Don and Brenda Chapman, whom I salute, as I am sure they are watching. Their work has been crucial in enabling many Quebec and Canadian citizens to regain their citizenship. As a result of their efforts, we learned that, due to obscure and complex rules at the time, General Roméo Dallaire, who was a senator and one of the greatest Canadians and Quebeckers who made us so proud, did not even have Canadian citizenship. This shows the importance of the work we are doing today.

Later on, numerous reforms were carried out to fix some of the problems that were being created by the Citizenship Act. These reforms, from 2005, 2009 and 2015, made it possible to resolve a number of situations. This means that the Citizenship Act, which was drafted in 1947, has not undergone a substantial review since that time. However, there is no law as important to a country as its citizenship law. The world has changed since 1947. Although some amendments were made in 1977, the fact remains that it may be time to sit down and review this important piece of legislation in order to make it clear what Canada is hoping to achieve in terms of citizenship. The definition of citizenship is at the core of what makes up a country. Canada has a responsibility to its citizens, whether they live here in Quebec or Canada or abroad.

During the pandemic, my office worked day and night to bring people from Abitibi—Témiscamingue home because they were stranded in various countries around the world. Our role as MPs is, first and foremost, to help our constituents and fellow citizens. I think it is worth emphasizing how important it is for Parliament to review the Citizenship Act. It may not be the most exciting topic, but it is perhaps one of the most important, because it forms the basis for defining our rights at a time when defining our identity and who we are is more important than ever.

I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill because it restores the citizenship that Quebeckers and Canadians have lost. I hope that this debate will lead us to begin the important work of reviewing citizenship, and so much the better if we begin our work with a consensus bill, because we have had enough squabbling in the House in recent years.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome back all members.

During the summer, one of the experiences I had was regarding legislation in general, whether it is Bill C-3 or other pieces of legislation. I found that, whether it is with members of the Conservative Party or other political entities, there is a great sense that the government has to work with the opposition and that the opposition needs to work with the government in passing legislation to ensure that we are doing what is in the best interest of all Canadians.

I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts, as we go into the fall session, on the expectation his constituents have to look at legislation objectively and look at ways we can deliver for Canadians by co-operating more this fall.

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

Madam Speaker, it is really great to see the member for Winnipeg North again. Too bad his question is a bit off topic. However, it is customary when Parliament resumes to accept such questions. I will accept this suggestion to work collaboratively and effectively. I know we are in politics, but sometimes we have to be collaborative.

I would like to note that yesterday there was a big announcement promising to build 4,000 housing units. Prefabricated houses are great, but the Liberal government is once again focusing only on large urban centres.

Regions like Abitibi‑Témiscamingue are being left out. Back home we have two companies that build prefab houses and a third that contributes to the effort. We are able to provide what it takes. What is more, we have a great need for housing.

I invite hon. members to look beyond politics and think about all Canadians and Quebeckers. How the land is used is an important consideration that is often forgotten. The same goes for—

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

I have to interrupt the member.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see my colleague again.

On the substance of Bill C-3, I know that language rights are very important to him. Does he believe that this bill should reflect the fact that anybody obtaining citizenship through the bill should have to reach the same level, at a minimum, of language proficiency as somebody obtaining citizenship through a different path, that those language requirements should be harmonized?

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

Madam Speaker, it is also nice for me to see the member for Calgary Nose Hill again.

She is right. The notion of fairness in a society is an important issue. We are being asked, in broad terms, what citizenship should look like. Obviously, I believe that all immigration powers should be transferred to Quebec so that Quebec can manage the language issue.

This summer, the ridings were caught up in a kind of ping-pong game. I do not know whether such was the case for all members of the House, but in my riding, dozens and dozens of people, spouses from abroad and foreign students, were stuck in the system. Right now, the immigration application process is a total mess, and the wait times are horrendous. These people are not numbers. They are individuals who want to come live in Canada, settle here and live here with us. We need to think about them.

That being said, language is definitely something I care a lot about. People need to be able to communicate if they are going to live together.

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in this place after the summer break.

Today, we are discussing immigration. However, the unemployment rate in this country is clearly a serious problem. The Conservatives say that the Liberal government's immigration policies and inefficiency are partly to blame for the unemployment rate.

I am curious to know what the Bloc Québécois thinks about the connection between problems with the immigration system that were created by the Liberal government and the unemployment rate.

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

Madam Speaker, I feel like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, whom I thank, is attacking me in a power play with his questions this morning. I will answer, considering that our time is limited.

Quebec has done more than its share when it comes to taking in refugees. A fair balance is missing on that score. I encourage Ottawa to set things straight and ensure that each province can do its fair share and take in the same number of refugees.

I think that drawing a link between immigration and the unemployment rate is a slippery slope. I urge my Conservative colleagues to be careful in that regard.

[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.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very nice to see you back in the House, and I welcome my colleagues as well.

I want to take this opportunity to ask my colleague a question, based off of her comments, as she did talk about the measures that were adopted in 2009. Many of these measures were deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Court of Justice, so this is not the first time the bill has come to the House. It has come back because there had to be some changes made to the bill. We have made those changes, and the Conservatives supported those changes.

Why are the Conservatives misleading Canadians once again on what we are actually talking about? They told lost Canadians in the last session that they would pass the bill. Why are they arguing this to be something that it is really not?

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

Madam Speaker, what I mentioned was that the bill had been reintroduced. The Liberals rejected the amendments proposed by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament. This bill was reintroduced by the Liberals unchanged, without taking any of those amendments into consideration.

Given the very first question that opened Parliament from the member for Winnipeg North talked about working collaboratively, this would be a great example, if this happens to go to committee, for amendments to be taken seriously, debated and voted on to strengthen the bill.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair. It is great to be back. It is always interesting: The Liberals break something, and they blame everyone else for the accident and for breaking it.

I want to thank our hon. colleague for her thoughtful presentation and intervention today. I have two questions: Does the government have any idea how many people would be granted citizenship automatically if the legislation passes? Has the government put forth any suggestions or details regarding the information and the evidence that would be required to prove the 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, there has been no cost analysis. The Liberals do not know the scope, so we do not know how much this would cost the government, a.k.a. the Canadian taxpayers. Also, we do not have the information on the 1,095 nonconsecutive days that are being proposed. This is an opportunity to provide amendments to make sure that we can strengthen the bill if we believe, as I argued, that we need people granted citizenship to have a deep, meaningful connection to Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend the member on her speech.

Earlier, one of her colleagues spoke about language issues. Given that Quebec is a nation, a bill has already been introduced to make a knowledge of French a requirement for obtaining citizenship in Quebec. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Madam Speaker, as I spoke of in my remarks, I believe that this would create a two-tier immigration system. I think we should have an even playing field. If there are language requirements in other streams of immigration, absolutely, they should also be applied.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome everyone back to the House.

I must admit that I am really pleased to hear our Bloc Québécois colleagues talking about Canadian identity and citizenship and to hear our Conservative colleagues talking about the importance of our Canadian values. With that in mind, I would like to say that, yes, in Canada, we need to work hard, we need to ensure a safe environment and we need to promote an egalitarian environment.

When it comes to solidarity, particularly with regard to our two official languages, can we count on the Conservatives to really highlight this issue in the House?

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the spirit of collaboration, if this passes to committee, I would absolutely expect that when amendments are brought forward, they will be debated thoroughly and voted on in a non-partisan manner.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be back here in Ottawa this fall to represent the beautiful riding of Madawaska—Restigouche in Parliament. After spending the summer in the community with my constituents, I am thrilled to get back to our legislative work as part of a team that is determined to quickly deliver concrete results for Canadians and to build a strong Canada.

Today, we are addressing a very important issue with our study of Bill C‑3. Canadian citizenship is more than just an administrative status. It is a powerful symbol of belonging to a country. It confers certain fundamental rights, such as the right to vote and the right to travel with a Canadian passport, and it also embodies a civic responsibility, a shared identity and a deep connection to our country. To be a citizen of Canada is to be part of a collective project rooted in democracy, equality, diversity and freedom.

There are three pathways to citizenship under the Citizenship Act: by being born in Canada, through naturalization by immigrating to Canada and acquiring citizenship, or by descent if an individual is born abroad to a Canadian parent.

Today, our debate is focusing on this last pathway, which is citizenship by descent. Since 2009, the fundamental right to citizenship by descent has been unfairly restricted. Thousands of people with a real, long-term connection to Canada have been deprived of that sense of belonging. An amendment made to the Citizenship Act under Stephen Harper's Conservative government introduced an arbitrary rule commonly known as the first-generation limit. This provision means that only children born abroad to a Canadian parent who was born in Canada are automatically entitled to citizenship. In other words, if two successive generations are born outside Canada, even if the parents are active Canadian citizens, the child cannot become a citizen. This provision severed the legal and symbolic tie between Canada and many children of Canadians living temporarily abroad. Canadian families were plunged into legal uncertainty when they discovered that their children were considered foreigners in their own country.

These concerns are not theoretical. They are affecting children growing up in Canadian households abroad and families who wish to pass on to their children not just a passport, but also a Canadian identity, a cultural heritage, a sense of belonging to a community and a feeling of safety. Failing to recognize them sends a message of exclusion to those who feel like full-fledged Canadians. It is a dismissal of the contributions of our diaspora and of the reality that this is a country where familial and citizenship ties often transcend borders.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the first-generation limit is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates sections 6 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is, mobility rights and equality rights. The Government of Canada did not appeal this decision, since it acknowledges that the act has had unacceptable consequences. Instead, our government is bringing forward a legislative framework that is both balanced and responsible. I sincerely believe that this was the right decision.

Today we have an opportunity, I would even say a duty, to correct an injustice. Bill C‑3 seeks to expand access to citizenship by descent beyond the first generation. It was designed with one clear objective: to restore the rights of lost Canadians while establishing a fairer framework for future generations. Once passed, Bill C‑3 will automatically grant citizenship by descent to anyone who was born abroad to a Canadian parent before the law came into force. That means that the unjustly excluded descendants of Canadians will have their status restored.

For children born after the bill comes into force, a new framework will be introduced that allows citizenship to be passed on beyond the first generation if a Canadian parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. A substantial connection is defined as being physically present in Canada for 1,095 cumulative days, or approximately three years. This requirement ensures that children who are granted citizenship have a genuine connection to Canada, without arbitrarily excluding people based on their place of birth. Some might wonder why the substantial connection test is not being applied retroactively. That is because it would be unfair to impose conditions on people who were born before the law came into force, when the criterion was not yet in place. The bill takes a forward-looking approach, setting clear, transparent, fair standards for the future.

I would like to emphasize that, since the court struck down the first-generation criterion adopted in 2009 as unconstitutional, it cannot stay in place. However, the court granted us an extension to allow Bill C‑3 to run its parliamentary course. If this bill is not passed before the ruling's suspension ends, there will be no limits anymore on citizenship by descent for all the people born to Canadian citizens abroad. People will be able to pass citizenship on to their children in perpetuity without the need for a substantial connection to Canada.

Bill C-3 seeks to strike a balance between implementing reasonable limits to automatic citizenship by descent and protecting the rights and privileges associated with Canadian citizenship. The introduction of the substantial connection criterion helps maintain a reasonable balance. Citizenship by descent will still be possible, but it will have to be rooted in a real, tangible connection with Canada. This criterion guarantees that future generations will not receive citizenship without having real ties to the country. Our goal is to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship without needlessly restricting it.

This is a modern, balanced and responsible framework. In fact, it is more rigorous than simply getting rid of the first-generation limit. It protects the integrity of our citizenship while correcting glaring injustices.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that, behind the legal and administrative considerations we are discussing today, there are real people with personal stories, life experiences and sincere ties to Canada. We must remember that the decisions we make in this House can shape the destinies of individuals and entire families.

I would also urge everyone to demonstrate caution and accuracy in terms of the tone and content of our debates, particularly when dealing with issues as sensitive as access to citizenship. Provocative slogans and simplistic solutions designed to inflame social media have no place in a serious debate such as this.

We are here to legislate responsibly, not to polarize public discourse. As legislators, we have a duty to maintain a safe social environment and to consider the impact our words could have in the public sphere. We have seen what can happen elsewhere in the world when debates on citizenship and immigration are weaponized. It results in social division, stigma and a rise in intolerance and mistrust. Canada must not go down that path.

Of course, as elected officials, we have to make choices, draw lines and sometimes make difficult decisions. In the process, however, we must never forget the human dimension of our decisions or the impact that our words can have in the public sphere. Bill C‑3 is based on a reasoned, balanced approach that allows us to meet our constitutional obligations while maintaining the integrity of our citizenship.

In closing, I want to stress that Canadian citizenship instills in all of us a deep sense of belonging to the diverse, democratic and inclusive country we are proud to call our own. Our government will continue to protect the value of Canadian citizenship by ensuring that the process remains fair, transparent and rooted in sound principles. Bill C‑3 strikes a necessary balance. It corrects a past injustice toward Canadians who were deprived of their citizenship, while ensuring that, in the future, citizenship by descent is based on genuine ties to our country.

I therefore call on my colleagues from all parties to work together on advancing this important bill. As legislators, we have an opportunity to set aside partisan differences, show leadership and vision, and reaffirm our commitment to a fair and inclusive model of citizenship that reflects our shared values.

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

Madam Speaker, somebody who is seeking citizenship through naturalization must show proficiency in one of Canada's official languages. Citizenship by descent, which is what is being proposed in this bill, does not require a language proficiency test, so this bill would not require somebody seeking citizenship through citizenship by descent to obtain proficiency in one of Canada's official languages.

Given that my colleague is a francophone, and I am assuming he supports French-language skills, why is he supporting a bill that would not require people seeking citizenship to have proficiency in one of Canada's official languages?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent Madawaska—Restigouche, a riding outside Quebec where over 80% of the population is francophone.

Today, we are debating Bill C-3, which seeks to correct a historic injustice that has been deemed unconstitutional: the first-generation measure. We have a duty to adopt a balanced system to ensure that people who have genuine ties to our country can become Canadian citizens. They should not be unfairly deprived of their citizenship.

There are two different kinds of citizenship. There is citizenship by naturalization, for which we have an immigration system and criteria. However, in this case, we are talking about something else, and that is citizenship by descent, where a parent can pass on citizenship to their children. To that end, I think that Bill C‑3 provides a balanced and reasonable system.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be back in the House. It feels like the start of a new school year. That being said, today, we are dealing with a subject that merits reflection, but that I think we need to move forward on. I say this as a member of the Bloc Québécois. Bill C-3 is a step in the right direction. I say that because of something that I witnessed recently. I want to give a shout-out to a citizen from Lac‑des‑Écorces, who was a victim of this. One of her brothers was able to get citizenship, but the two little twins were not.

We do need to take a step in the right direction, but I would like to ask my colleague a question. We are obviously not talking about the need to learn French to obtain citizenship, but does he agree with me that we need to completely overhaul the process for obtaining Canadian citizenship? I will not be there, because I will likely be busy taking care of that issue in Quebec down the road.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, for now, Bill C‑3 is a welcome step in the right direction because many Canadians have lost their citizenship.

I have also heard stories about people in very problematic situations, which is why I said in my speech that we always have to keep in mind that the decisions we make in the House have a real impact on people's everyday lives. Conversations about access to citizenship are conversations about identity, about who we really are. That is why it is so important to work on Bill C‑3.

I believe there is always room for conversations about ways to improve our citizenship system going forward. Talking about these ideas with colleagues is enriching, but, right now, we are talking about Bill C‑3. I hope it will be passed as soon as possible in order to correct this historic injustice.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, with its large Acadian community, which also speaks French, as do Quebeckers.

I support reforming the Citizenship Act in order to protect the rights of people who have lost their citizenship. However, I would like to propose some amendments.

I have a question for my Liberal colleague. Can it be that the Prime Minister has lost the key to his bulldozer? In June, we did not have time to study any bills. We only had time to get them passed very quickly. However, Bill C‑3 is in need of some major changes.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that Bill C‑3 was one of the first bills introduced by our new government in the early days of this new Parliament last spring. I would suggest that this shows how important this issue is to our new government and how seriously we take this matter.

Of course, time is of the essence when we consider Bill C‑3, since the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that the first-generation limit is unconstitutional. We were granted a suspension from the court until November of this year to allow us to examine Bill C‑3. As a result, the parties will need to work together to pass Bill C‑3.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns that the member has expressed. When it comes to consultation, consultations are always done for government legislation. I will put to the member the issue I have. Here we have legislation on which a couple of Conservatives have stood up to say that there are individuals who should receive their citizenship. There is no reason whatsoever why, after having had hours and hours of debate, we should not see the legislation go to committee. It is a minority government, meaning the government cannot ram the bill through a committee. It takes a majority of members to pass an amendment.

If the Conservatives are so confident in the need for changes, why would they not want to see the bill go to committee? Conservative voters themselves want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, with a new session, there is a new demeanor. I appreciate the calm demeanor of my colleague from Winnipeg North. Sometimes he gets a little robust in his debate.

I find it interesting that the member who probably speaks the most on the floor of the House of Commons has an issue with us standing up and putting our concerns on the record for our constituents. I think a bit of debate and having members address the concerns they hear in their ridings is a good part of democracy. I feel that this is the proper process, and when we get to the committee level, we are looking forward to putting forth amendments that will make this piece of legislation better. We will see if those are accepted by the other parties in the House.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I love the comment from our colleague across the way, saying we should not worry, it will all get sorted out and Liberals will work with everybody to make things better. I have been here for 10 years and have yet to really see any of that take place.

In the office of my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, the immigration cases far outweigh any of the other cases we do. They are absolutely heartbreaking. There is Maya, whose case we dealt with, a lovely lady from Syria who came to Prince George to take her master's degree. She was by herself. She left her husband behind and worked for years to get her husband into our country. There is also a gentleman by the name of Mal. He worked desperately to get his wife and children from India here. These are families that are separated, torn far apart, and it is absolutely heartbreaking when we hear their stories.

My question to our hon. colleague is this: Do we know whether other peer countries, like the United States, Britain, Italy and France, follow suit with the same practice of passing citizenship on to children who are born abroad?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hard work the member does for his constituents in Cariboo—Prince George. I do appreciate the fact that the question is something I mentioned in my speech.

I would say it is not the standard of practice in the United States, Britain, France, Italy or a number of our peer countries, which, with the rare exception, have capped passing on citizenship to the first generation born outside of the country. We are definitely not in line with our partner countries.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about Bill C‑5, we are talking about human beings, about families.

Let me be clear: The Bloc Québécois will be supporting the bill. Just because we are members of the Bloc Québécois does not mean we think only about the people of Quebec. Among other things, there are real people behind this inequity, which has been described as unconstitutional. Despite the opposition and the fact that comprehensive reform is needed, I dare hope that we can move on to other, equally important issues, and finish with this one.

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree that reforms are needed, especially when it comes to some kind of language criteria. I believe my colleague would agree with that. Those are some of the adjustments that need to be made at committee level, but following the process and ensuring that people do get to speak in the House of Commons about legislation is a good part of the process. I think people do have comments they want to put on the record to reflect the desires and opinions of their constituents.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, the member uses the word “broken”, and this is something that Pierre Poilievre likes to talk about, to give a false impression—

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

The hon. member knows that he should not mention other members by name.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thought we could use his name as long as he has not been brought to the bar.

The former member for Carleton consistently talks about Canada being broken. Now he is talking about immigration being broken, yet he sat around a cabinet table where it took years to be able to sponsor a spouse and where the then minister of immigration deleted literally hundreds of thousands of files of people who were in that process for years.

Yes, there are issues with immigration. There could even be issues of concern with respect to Bill C-3. Even Conservative speakers have indicated there is a need to pass elements of Bill C-3 in order to provide justice, for individuals to be able to receive their citizenship. One of the first steps in achieving that justice is recognizing that even Conservative voters want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons so we can give that justice.

My question for the member is this. Would she not agree that Conservatives can talk and debate, even at committee stage, and bring forward amendments, and all they need to do is get the support of the majority? After all, it is a minority government. If their arguments are that strong, surely to goodness they would be able to pass it at committee stage.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that not only I but others who have already spoken to this piece of legislation this morning have indicated that we believe in a strong, fair and meaningful Canadian citizenship. We also support restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and equal treatment for adopted children. However, as we have stated, the bill goes far beyond that, cheapening the value of Canadian citizenship by creating a new system of unlimited chain migration, which only serves to undermine our national identity.

I look forward to watching what happens at committee. I trust that, based on what the member has said, members of the Liberal caucus who serve on that committee would be more than open to the amendments we bring forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her debate and her tone.

I would like her to expand on her question. What amendments will the Conservatives move in committee to improve the bill? Above all, when she talks about a loophole that the bill might create for some immigrants, what loophole is she referring to, exactly? I would like to better understand my colleague, and I think it is a matter of general interest.

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

Madam Speaker, I would not presume to pre-empt what the members on the committee that will be reviewing this piece of legislation may choose to bring forward and what they may choose to bring forward based on the testimony they may hear in regard to this piece of legislation.

I believe that, as in the past, we have a case here of some deeply flawed legislation being proposed. We have already indicated some of the things that we have difficulty with. The government does not know the number of people this will impact, it does not know what the costs are, and it has not been able to confirm processes that need to be put in place in order to follow up with its 1,095-day requirement.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North stands up once again, points fingers and says that all the Conservatives say is, “It is broken.” Well, this file is broken, and the truth is that the Liberals broke it. Our country was built on the backs of immigrants. Immigration is so important to our country, yet the Liberals broke it. They lost track of over a million immigrants coming into our country; we know that from the last session.

I know our hon. colleague, who I have the deepest respect for, has heard some of the same stories that I have in my constituency. Could the member share another story of a constituent in her riding who has some deep fears about this piece of legislation?

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

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek has 10 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I think I would have difficulty choosing just one story because, as my hon. colleague pointed out, immigration issues consume a lot of our time in our ridings.

I will say this: Conservatives will continue to support a system that is one of integrity and security and is based on responsible policy. We will continue to support—

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

Unfortunately, we have to resume debate; we are way over time.

The hon. member for Niagara South.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I will use a hypothetical example: A third-generation Canadian, who was born, raised, everything, here in Canada, has a child, and that child, upon hitting five years old, moves with the family to any European country, or to any other country in the world, lives there for 30, 40 or 50 years, and then makes the determination that they want to come back. Would the member then apply the very same principles he is espousing today of them not having that connection?

The 1,095 days that the Conservatives continue to talk about is something that qualifies an individual to become a permanent resident to Canada. There are some requirements to qualify to become a citizen. Depending on the age, there might be an English requirement or a French requirement. There is the 1,095 days requirement. Is the Conservative Party suggesting that we should be changing the 1,095 days?

The Conservative Party needs to recognize that its members might have some ideas that are good to have some debate on, but let us respond to what Conservative voters are saying and have a more robust sense of co-operation in getting legislation to committees, where they can have the kind of debate the member seems to want to have.

Would the member not agree that it is time to allow legislation to actually go to committee, as opposed to talking endlessly in regards to it, so that Canadians would get what they want, which is a robust opposition that wants to co-operate, just like the government?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there.

Let me say this: We have concerns about the legislation. There are two or three components that we agree with, and we are quite happy to dive into this at committee.

What I am not in favour of, and what our party is not in favour of, is citizenship in perpetuity being given to people who may not have ever set foot in Canada to become Canadian citizens. To me, that is absurd.

We will debate this, diving into the legislation at committee, and we will put forward amendments to improve it. I do not see what is wrong with that. The member suggests that we are talking endlessly, but this is what we do in this place when legislation is presented at second reading. We debate it, and we present our opinions, on the record.

I look forward to having this sent to committee, as well as reviewing it and the improvements from this side of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Niagara South for his speech. I think it is appropriate to send him my regards for the first time in this Parliament.

I would like to know more about the Conservatives' position. This morning, it felt as though Niagara Falls was such a sieve that it was about to become the new Roxham Road.

However, that is not what I take from this bill. I would like my colleague to clearly explain to me what the loophole is that, if I understood his previous colleague's intervention correctly, would open Canada's borders to hundreds of thousands of people for citizenship in perpetuity.

What exactly are the Conservatives afraid of and, more importantly, what concrete, pragmatic and simple solutions will they propose in committee to fix this loophole?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's reference to Niagara Falls is quite timely. I was in Niagara Falls the other day with the mayor of the community. We were walking down Fallsview Boulevard, and he was pointing out all the hotels that are full of people waiting to have their refugee applications dealt with, at hundreds of millions of dollars in cost to the taxpayer. This goes to the heart of part of the reason we have an issue with this bill.

The backlog at IRCC to have files dealt with, in some cases, is up to two years. That is one of the issues that could be created with this bill if it were to pass in its current form. The backlog and the burden on IRCC and CBSA is going to be overwhelming, and it is going to be very costly to the taxpayer.

Niagara Falls is not the next Roxham Road, but I can tell the member that there are serious issues affecting that community now because we cannot get a handle on our immigration cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

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

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to read some quotes about Canadians living abroad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

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

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, having been away for the summer, I want to welcome everybody back. It is always a pleasure and an honour to speak on the floor of the House of Commons, something that so few Canadians get to experience. I welcome everybody back. I welcome you, Madam Speaker, back to the chair.

I recently got some sad news. A childhood friend of mine, a friend I went to school with from, I believe, grade 3 or grade 4, Dennis Doyle, passed away tragically and unexpectedly. He leaves behind his father, Peter Doyle; his mother; his sister, Leanne; and his fiancée, Ashley Sumner. This was completely unexpected.

I went to high school with Dennis. He was such a character. Whenever he walked by, everybody would give a good-natured sound effect; if someone knows, they know. To Dennis' family, I am so sorry to hear of his loss. I am going to say it one time for Dennis, in commemoration of his life: bah.

I also wish to recognize the life of Marilyn VanDongen. Marilyn VanDongen was somebody who was so devoted to the community of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. She and her family were active participants in the Alzheimer's walk. She was afflicted with this horrible disease, a disease that ultimately took the life of my grandmother.

Marilyn leaves behind her husband, Casey, to whom I awarded a Queen's Platinum Jubilee Medal. She also leaves behind her daughter Diane; son Ken; another son, Neil; and daughter Sheila. Neil and I actually went to kindergarten together, so this is a family I have known for over 40 years. Their contributions cannot be understated. I see Neil and Sheila frequently in the community, and I want to recognize Marilyn's life. May perpetual light shine upon her.

We are talking about immigration today, and I often speak about this topic in the House of Commons. It actually came up in my first speech. It is something that is really close to my heart. People are probably tired of hearing about my family story, but I am going to say it again because I am able to say it again. When I talk about how proud I am to walk onto the floor of the House of Commons, I mean it. Every single day, I just take it in.

In fact, the night I was elected, September 20, 2021, my mother, who came to this country as an immigrant, asked, "What would your grandfather, my father, think if he saw this today?" This simply was not an option for him, to be in the House of Commons. My mom has told a story about how he had to borrow money for a chicken so he could have a chicken on Christmas Day. Those are my roots. That is where I come from.

My mother followed her father, who came when he did not have the money to bring the whole family. He came to Canada to work because he came from a very poor part of Italy. My mother followed him in 1957. My father came with his family in 1959. They met in Canada. My dad actually did not finish high school; he went to work. He went to work at a place called Balco, now named Tolko, a huge employer in British Columbia, and he worked there until he literally could not physically work there anymore. That was the Canada they came to.

My mom spent her time as a homemaker. She went back to school when I was 10 years old and became a legal assistant. On the one hand, we had a mill worker; on the other hand, we had a legal assistant. They had three children: my sister Rosie, my other sister Ellie and then me. My sisters both became teachers, which is a very noble career.

My parents lived that Canadian dream, and now I am living that. To me, that is what this place embodies. That is what Canada embodies.

What do we have to say about that? I owe everything I have to immigration. I would not be standing here were it not for immigration. My parents came to a very different Canada, and places change. When my dad came to Canada, if someone showed up, they got a job. If they worked hard, they kept that job. That was the promise of Canada. That was the Canadian dream.

My dad worked very hard. I know that because I spent a summer working at the sawmill where he worked, and after two shifts, I had never had more respect for my father, knowing the back-breaking labour that he did for over 30 years. There I was, 19 years old, thinking, “I do not know how my dad has done this.” He sacrificed so much. In return, he gave back so much to Canada. I cannot tell members how many hours of volunteerism they gave or how proudly patriotic my family is.

This all comes back to immigration. I owe Canada. We, as a family, owe Canada a tremendous debt of gratitude, and it is against that backdrop that I speak about Bill C-3, a bill on immigration. Frankly, I have heard a number of falsehoods, things I vehemently disagree with from our friends on the Liberal side.

I just heard a question: “Why are we not prepared to welcome Canadians?” Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I received a message from somebody the other day. I had worked with her on a few things. We had worked together on one thing in particular, and she said that she had just gotten her permanent residency. She went through it the right way. I wrote a note back, and I said that I could not wait to sign her citizenship certificate someday.

This idea that Conservatives are not welcoming, that there is a carte blanche “no” to immigration, could not be further from the truth. We are a welcoming party, an inclusive party, and if I look around, even in the House of Commons right now, I see people like me who are first-generation Canadians, who owe everything they have to immigration, or who themselves immigrated, like the member who spoke just before me.

Against that backdrop, we have to ask ourselves how we deal with this and how we deal with immigration law going forward. We have Bill C-3 before us. This bill would eliminate the first-generation limits and grant citizenship to those born abroad if one parent were to spend just 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada, and there would be no criminal record checks.

I want to dive into that. I know I have spoken a lot about my background, but I think it is really important. I wish I had more time to speak to it. Maybe the member for Winnipeg North will pass a unanimous consent motion so that I could keep on talking.

The reality is that for those 1,095 non-consecutive days, or about three years, somebody could divide their time up. How much time are we talking about? How many of those 1,095 non-consecutive days are we looking at? Where are the checks and balances to determine whether the person has actually spent that much time?

What we are talking about is what the courts have called a “substantial connection”, and “substantial” is one of these legal words. I come from a legal background, as most people hear way too much about, but the reality is that “substantial” is one of these legal buzzwords. What does it actually mean? Can I have a substantial connection to a number of places? Do I have a substantial connection, for instance, to the place where my parents came from, where they landed when they first came to Canada, where they settled or other places? I question whether somebody can have a substantial connection to a number of places.

The reality is that Conservatives are completely open. We want to show an angle of compassion and an angle of just immigration and appropriate immigration. I am completely open to that. In fact, I welcome it. I want people to live and experience what I have lived and experienced. I cannot wait to welcome these people with an immigration system that is just, appropriate and reflects Canadian values.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been here all morning listening to Conservative after Conservative stand in their place to say that there are some just cases for which people would be able to have their citizenship if we were to pass this legislation. Members on all sides of the House recognize the value of it, so if the member says that the Conservative Party wants to show progressive forward movement, one of the things it could do is recognize that there have been hours of debate. Back in June, we were debating this legislation.

There is no reason whatsoever that we cannot continue this debate at committee and look at the amendments the Conservatives have. It is a minority government. That means all they have to do is convince a majority of MPs to be on side with them. The opposition has a majority membership on the standing committee.

My question for the member is this: If he is convinced of the amendments the Conservatives apparently have, why not allow it to go to committee?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I appreciate about the member for Winnipeg North is not what he says, but how loud he says it.

I have watched here all morning and have seen countless Liberals, many women, standing behind him, who do not get to ask a question of the government or of us here, when all the while he stands and speaks. If this is going to be a discussion and the government is going to put its money where its mouth is, this is the reality. There is one member who speaks on behalf of the government. I take issue with the fact that he is asking all the questions on behalf of the government when there are countless individuals, some newly elected, who would love to participate in this debate, and they have to take a back seat to that one member.

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

I would remind the hon. member that that is not correct. There have been other members asking questions. Also, it is not the tone of the debate to remark on who asks the questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that this member should lecture us on the tone and volume of speech in the House. That said, it is evidently the tone and volume to be expected in the coming year.

In practical terms, I believe that one question remains, a question that was raised by the member for Winnipeg North: What will be studied in committee? I need to understand the loophole because I cannot imagine that the government would not conduct any background checks. If so, then we would definitely have to clarify the legislation to make these checks mandatory. That said, mounting a fearmongering campaign by saying that it will allow in people who are going to threaten our security is a dubious conflation.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the amendments that the Conservatives are going to propose in committee.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that we as Conservatives have spoken about propaganda and fear. In fact, I spoke about the Canadian dream and how amazing it is to be here speaking about this.

At the end of the day, we want an immigration system that is just, is appropriate and reflects that those who should be coming to Canada, those with an appropriate connection, would actually come here. The reality is, when it does come to consideration at committee, we should be looking at a number of different things. We should be looking at the substantial connection. How much time does that really mean? How many generations beyond the current generation are we looking at?

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

Madam Speaker, how is it that the bill provides a system for people to obtain citizenship in a way that the government cannot even estimate how many people would be eligible over a set period of time? That is problem one.

Problem two is that the bill does not have any language requirements for people who are obtaining citizenship by descent, whereas we do for citizenship by naturalization. The third problem is that the bill has no criminal record check, and the fourth problem, as my colleagues have already talked about, is that the presence in Canada test is probably not adequate.

What is important to understand is that the Liberals, in their debate, are trying to move away from the fact they have broken Canada's immigration system. Can my colleague talk about how Conservatives have been putting forward common-sense proposals to fix the immigration system the Liberals have broken and restore order and fairness to a once great system that served our country well?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe it was Senator Martin who put forward a bill that would have rectified so many of these issues, yet the Liberals, as I understand it, voted against it.

When we are talking about who is on what side and how we are doing this, a Conservative senator put forward this bill and it was voted against, and that should be remembered.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise very serious concerns about Liberal legislation, Bill C-3. This legislation proposes to create a new system of unlimited chain migration into Canada at a time when Liberal immigration policies have already skewed population growth to the point where public services are under great strain. I believe this is not only bad policy, but also immoral policy.

The Liberals would like to make it easier for people who have never stepped foot in Canada to obtain Canadian citizenship. It is absurd. It is outrageous. The population growth the Liberals have already inflicted upon our country has put us in a vulnerable position on many fronts. The reality is that they want to hand Canadian citizenship out like candies at the counter.

By treating Canadian citizenship this way, the Liberals will further increase the number of people who are trying to access social programs, housing and health care. This is already a growing problem where we have more people than we have services available for the people who are here. The quality of life for Canadians is threatened to be further eroded by Bill C-3. It would make many of the problems in our country even worse.

I am particularly concerned about the implications this would have for our health care system, which is already in a state of degradation because of the surge in population growth across the country. We do not have enough hospitals. We do not have enough beds. We do not have enough doctors. We do not have enough nurses. The prospect of Liberals wanting to bring even more people into Canada is truly concerning to many.

I would like to share with the House a story to illustrate just how population growth is lowering the quality of life for Canadians across this country, and it is a personal story of my family dealing with the hospital system. On Monday of last week, my dear mother, who I love, went into the hospital for hip replacement surgery.

As has become the norm across Canada, she had to wait far too long for her surgery date. In fact, by the time my mother went in to have her surgery, the surgeon said the damage to her hip had reached the point of being a 10 out of 10. That means that my dear mother was dealing with a lot of pain for a long period of time while waiting for the chance to have a surgery that everybody in the health care system acknowledged she needed much more urgently than it was provided.

The state of our health care system becomes even more clear with the experience we had in the hospital itself. The morning of the surgery, everything went smoothly. I was with my mom. The surgeon was awesome. The nurses were awesome. They took great care of her. We are very thankful for the excellent work they did. We are also very grateful to be in a country where someone does not have to go into debt to see a doctor. It was a very good experience in the morning.

I was with my mom in the afternoon and in the evening. Around 10:00 p.m., I decided I was going to go home to get some sleep. I hit the 401. I was driving east on my way back home, and I got a phone call from my mom, who was frantic and upset. My mother is a very calm, cool and collected lady. She does not get upset easily, but she was freaking out. She was freaking out because she awoke from her rest while recovering from surgery to the sounds of hospital staff moving a male patient into her room.

I appreciate that some people in the House might not see that as a big deal, but a lot of people across Canada would. When someone is recovering from a surgery in a hospital, they are in a physically vulnerable state and can barely move. The idea that hospital staff would move a dude into my mom's room in the middle of the night with no notice and no acknowledgement, and not even recognize that this was a bizarre and weird action to take to begin with, made my mom quite unhappy. The male patient who was moved into the room was also very uncomfortable with the situation. The only thing dividing them was a thin curtain pulled between the hospital beds.

Naturally, when my mom is upset, it is like the bat signal going up. I got off the highway, headed westward and got back to the hospital. I went to speak to the supervising nurse. After some persistence, and I think, Madam Speaker, you know me well enough to know what my persistence might look like, the staff did move my mom to a new hospital room with a female patient.

I asked the supervising nurse what the hospital policy was that allowed it to force a male patient and a female patient to share a room without their consent. The supervising nurse printed the policy off and handed it to me. I looked at it, and it was a policy that said that, due to overcrowding and under-resourced hospitals, the hospitals in Toronto had made the decision that they would have to give themselves that power.

I am not of the belief that this makes it a good choice for them. I do not like the policy, but in that moment, I could see very practically what population growth has done to our hospitals. I did some research, and I found that this has become a common practice in hospitals all across Canada. They give themselves the ability to pair male and female patients in the same room against their will because they do not have enough space.

A week later, after that whole ordeal, I came back to Ottawa, and what was the first thing on the legislative calendar? The Liberals want to make it easier to bring even more people into our country, increasing the demands on our health care system even further and continuing to demonstrate a quite objectively observable pattern of policy-making that indicates the Liberals would rather bring new people into this country than take care of the people who are already here.

My mom and seniors like her built this country, paying taxes for decades on the promise that they would be looked after when they needed it. However, we have a series of policy choices continuously being made by the Liberal government to make life harder for people like my mom. Forgive me, but I cannot get down with that. It is not right.

I appreciate that Liberal MPs may want to dismiss or deflect this. They might say this is a provincial issue, asking why we do not take it to the provincial government and claiming they have no responsibility. Well, my response to that would be this: Maybe that is a message they could deliver to the Prime Minister, as he is the one having fireplace chats with the Premier of Ontario. He is the one sipping Chardonnay by the fire with the man who is in charge of the government in this province. If the Liberals want to make health care funding an issue, by all means they should encourage the Prime Minister to do so. I am not able to. I do not get invited to the fireplace. I do not think the Speaker does either. Most Canadians do not get to go to the fireplace.

What do we have control over in this House? We have the ability to control what we vote for and what we stand for. We get to represent our constituents and say to them that we are going to take a stand for what is right and what is good for the people of this country. With Bill C-3, the Liberals cannot even tell us how many new people they would bring into the nation. They cannot give us an answer. They expect us to just rubber-stamp their legislation when the basic information required to know how it would affect our families, our communities and the people who send us here to Ottawa is not being provided by the Liberal government.

It is unacceptable. It is an unacceptable way to do business, and the reality is that the Liberals are going to continue this approach of valuing bringing more people in instead of taking care of the people who are already here. We will all lose. That is what will happen. We will all lose in that situation.

My request of every Liberal MP here and every Liberal MP who might hear my words is for them to please do their job, please take care of the people of this country, join the Conservatives in pointing out how reckless Liberal policies are in growing our population and join the Conservatives in pointing out that, at minimum, the Canadian people deserve to know how many new people will be entering this country.

My mother did not deserve what happened at the hospital. I do not think anybody's mother deserves it. That is a good enough reason to say this legislation is just not good enough.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague chose to spend his time talking about the health care system, and it is the hon. member's right to do so. He shared a story about his mother. I appreciate that, because I too have a story, with my mother recently being in the hospital for emergency surgery. My mother and I actually had a similar conversation about the state of our health care system, and I shared with her that I was very proud of the fact that I voted in favour of providing even more money for transfers to the provinces, record funding of $200 billion, which we know is going to have a very positive impact on the health care system. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can say the same.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, with every dollar the Liberals claim to be spending, they are bringing more people here. There is a pretty basic way of understanding how the math works: When money is added to a system, demand is also added to that system, and then we expect to get better results. It is illogical, immoral and dishonest to pretend the Liberals' immigration policies are not adding to the burden of our health care system and making it harder for Canadians to get the health care they deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, I think there are some very good things in this bill that will correct some injustices. I am sure other changes need to be made too. The Citizenship Act as a whole is very confusing.

Does my colleague agree that the Citizenship Act is in need of a complete overhaul?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not understand why the first question everybody is not asking is “How many people?” This is the primary point I am trying to make here today. We do not have basic information on the number of people. We can make this more complicated and dress it up in political language if Liberals would like, but all I want to know is how many people they are planning to bring into our country, so that when we go back to our constituents, we can at least say that we made an informed decision.

I would encourage my hon. colleague from the Bloc to ask that very same question and make it the number one priority in this conversation. How many people are coming here, and how many hospital beds, jobs and houses will not go to Canadians because of this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a follow-up question on something my colleague said about the spending of health care dollars and the number of people coming into the country.

I am looking at an article from December 12, 2024, that says, “Canadians faced longest ever health-care wait times in 2024, study finds”. We had one colleague get up and say that we are spending all this money on health care, but at the same time, we have a vertical hockey stick increase in the number of people who are coming into the country. The government cannot even say how many people it will allow into the country through this bill.

The government is trying to claim it is spending enough money on health care while exponentially juicing the immigration numbers. It is not an immigrant's fault for wanting to come to Canada. It is the Liberal government's fault for burdening our already broken health care system with numbers of people that our country cannot support. Does the member agree?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I agree.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier in my speech, debate on a subject as serious as access to citizenship merits accuracy and discipline on our part. When I said that, I was referring to this type of speech. I think we should avoid exaggeration, oversimplification and provocative slogans designed to rile up social media. We should take our responsibilities as legislators seriously and focus on studying Bill C‑3, which is about access to citizenship.

Here is my question for my colleague. What so-called amendments would his party make to Bill C‑3?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have yet another example of a member of Parliament saying that he is concerned about information and studying the legislation and that he really wants to make an informed decision and elevate the discourse. However, when I ask basic questions like how many people would be brought into our country, that is crossing a line somehow.

This is basic stuff. People deserve to know, with the scarce resources our country has, how many people the Liberal government is going to bring in to further divide what is a finite pie of resources and opportunity. This is a basic element of managing a country, an economy and a health care system. The Liberals want to make it more complicated than that, but it is very simple.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, the 1,095 days that we often hear about from the Conservative benches is not just a number pulled out of the House. Today, it takes 1,095 days in order to be able to qualify for citizenship when people who are permanent residents apply. That applies to a lot of people today in Canada.

What I consistently hear from the Conservatives is that they have amendments, but when asked to share them, the amendments magically disappear. Conservative voters want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons. A lot of the debate that we have seen in the last three hours could have been taking place in the committee stage, when we could actually do what, in part, the Conservatives want. That is to provide citizenship for some individuals who should have citizenship today.

Does the member not agree that we should be listening to Canadians, being more co-operative and at least allowing legislation to get to the committee stage without having to use time allocation?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said in my initial speech, Conservatives need the bill to be amended. Strong changes need to be made. A mere three years, or 1,095 non-consecutive days, is not enough to claim citizenship down the road after a third or fourth generation. It is not enough. There needs to be a more genuine connection with the country. Citizenship is not easy; it is not up for grabs. People should have to prove their intent and their genuine ties to the country in order to have citizenship, and Conservatives are in agreement with that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, Conservatives are listening to Canadians. Canadians have concerns. We are already facing hospital closures in our province of British Columbia. There are not enough doctors. There are not enough nurses to be able to fulfill the duties and the services that we need right now. The Liberals cannot tell us how many people they are going to bring into our country.

To our hon. colleague from Edmonton Southeast, how is that compassionate? When we bring new entrants into our country, we want to be compassionate. There is no compassion in showing that the Liberals cannot tell—

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

I will give the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast 30 seconds for a brief answer.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, Conservatives will propose for the bill to go to committee for proper review, for proper safeguards to be put in place so that Canadian citizenship is not misused, so that it is not abused and so that it is equally valued by the hard-working non-Canadian-born Canadians like me and like millions of others, so they also feel appreciated. There should be no two-tier tests for immigration.

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

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened throughout the debate today on what is a very important piece of legislation. I know, in the past, the member opposite has been very supportive of individuals who should have their citizenship today. In fact, that is universally felt. There are people who should be Canadian citizens today but are not, because the House of Commons has not co-operated in getting the legislation passed.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on the mandate that all politicians of all political parties were given, which is to have a higher sense of co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons. Can she provide her thoughts on being able to see this ultimately passed to committee?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have been championing the work of the government and want to say to the government that we need to make sure Canada's immigration and citizenship laws are charter-compliant.

I have carried this file for more than a decade. The Conservatives first brought it forward in 2006, so it has been 16 years that our charter rights have been violated. I am asking the government and urging the government to fix this, working through a Senate bill and working with the government on a government-introduced bill. We are here again doing that.

It is incumbent on all members of Parliament to work collaboratively to honour the rights of all Canadians and to treat each other respectfully and equally. All Canadians are Canadians, period.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the member for Vancouver East talk about championing the government's bill, and it made me think back to the last Parliament, in which the party of which she is a member continually, on issue after issue, championed the government's legislation. In fact, the NDP always supported it. It sounds as though, even today, its members have not learned much, and they are still continuing to blindly support the legislation being put forth by the government, even though their party does not really even exist in the House anymore.

My question for the member is, how is that working out for you? Why do you continue to support the Liberal government? How did that work out for you?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Just a reminder before I go to the member for Vancouver East that questions are asked through the chair; the member is not asking my opinion.

The member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is exactly the kind of politics and approach that Canadians rejected. That is why the Conservatives are sitting on that side of the House, and that is why their leader lost his own seat. There had to be a by-election for him to win his seat back.

However, I am not here for any of that. It does not matter that the NDP has only seven seats in the House. I am going to do what is right for Canadians. I will continue to champion the rights of all Canadians. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We should all be treated equally and not in the way the Conservatives want, which is to strip away the rights of women. That is what they did in 2006, and it has been ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional. That is why I am here to champion this and to make sure that this gets fixed.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reviewing this bill's trajectory to date. It was debated in the House at second reading, and, had it not been for the election and, to a certain extent, the systematic obstruction of the business of the House, it probably would have been passed already.

The Bloc Québécois would like to see a complete overhaul of the immigration system because it is not working well as is. To be clear, though, we do support this bill.

In my colleague's opinion, why are we still debating this bill at second reading when it has already been passed at this stage and people still want—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will have to stop the member there to give the other member a chance to answer the question.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question; he is absolutely right. The NDP work collaboratively with the Bloc, and they are absolutely onside to respect the constitutional rights of all Canadians, particularly women.

We have debated this matter. In fact, this very issue went before committee for 30 hours. We debated the matter at committee at length. We already debated it in the House for not one round, but two rounds. This should be made law. There is no—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[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.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you back in the House, and I want to thank my hon. colleague for her comments and the fact that she really did make some reasonable comments around what it means to be a Canadian.

I am sure that the member has heard a lot of the dialogue that has been going on, and there has been rhetoric around this bill, Bill C-3, which is intended to restore Canadian citizenship to lost Canadians and not anything else, but other colleagues have been talking about crime, trying to demonize this bill and trying to demonize immigration.

Can the member comment on why we should not frame immigration citizenship in the way that it has been framed today in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her position in this place, representing the government as deputy House leader. It is wonderful to see a member who represents such an important part of Canada, young women, in Parliament.

I think it would be very, very wise for all members to reflect on our words. As members of Parliament, I urge them, all of them, regardless of party, to not listen to the boys in the backroom. They really need a lot of psychiatric help. Their main goal is power for its own sake, no matter what. This is a time for us as members of Parliament to do the right thing, and to look not for a gotcha moment but for a “do the right thing” moment.

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

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the member's speech, which conflated Bill S-245, which only deals with lost Canadians, with exactly what Bill C-3 is, which is much broader than dealing with lost Canadians, I have a hypothetical question for her.

According to my interpretation of this legislation, if a person who came to Canada from another country and got their citizenship then decided to return to the country they originally came from, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and had a child, and that child came to Canada under some pretense, got convicted of a crime for which they had to serve at least 1,095 days in a federal penitentiary and then returned to whichever country they came from once that was served, they would then be eligible to have their children automatically become Canadian citizens.

Did I hear that right?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have a perfect opportunity to hear from experts who have looked at citizenship law. That hypothetical was a little too much like “three people get on the empty bus, five get off, and then three more get on, so my question is, how old is the bus driver?”

To answer the hon. member's question, I would like to have sensible, thoughtful discussions in committee. If the bill needs amendment, then we should make sure the government allows us to do so.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone is saying, we have spoken to this bill a number of times before.

Here we are again, spending another day studying this bill even though our position on it has not changed. We took a position last year, and if the House had not been prorogued and an election called, the bill would have been passed already.

Instead of doing what we are doing now and going over the same ground again, should we not completely overhaul the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to come up with measures and provisions that are more closely aligned with the reality of Quebec and Canada in 2025?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, the member for Rivière-du-Nord.

He is right. We definitely have bigger issues to contend with when it comes to immigration. That being said, we still have to deal with Bill C-3. He is also right to say that if former prime minister Justin Trudeau had not decided to prorogue the House, this bill would already be law in Canada. It has been almost a year.

All the same, we need to do the work, but I agree with my friend.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge right at the beginning that, at the end of the day, there is no doubt that members of the Conservative Party of Canada have amendments to make changes to the legislation. Hopefully, we will see it go to committee sooner as opposed to later. Conservatives seem to give the impression that they want to delay the passage to committee, which is unfortunate.

Having said that, my concern is with some of the wording that is being used, which is trying to give the impression, for example, that our health care issues and problems are because of immigrants and the numbers. The member, like me, is from the province of Manitoba, and whether it is the Premier of Manitoba, the Minister of Immigration or other ministers, they are saying that not only do they want to retain the people who are there today, but they want more, and they are also responsible for health care.

Can the member provide his thoughts in terms of what he believes the numbers are like in the province of Manitoba today?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are coming at this from two sides of the issue. The member seems to think we are blaming immigrants solely as being responsible for our delayed health care. That is certainly not the case, but I think he would agree that when we increase population by half a million people per year for several years, some of those hundreds of thousands of people per year are going to need health care, and all of those people are going to need housing.

The member says that increased immigration levels are having no impact on our health care delays, and it is only Canadian citizens who are having an impact on our health care lag times. Yes, health care wait times in Manitoba are out of control; they are totally unsustainable. The Health Sciences Centre—Manitoba's Hospital has been listed by the union as a grey zone for nurses to work in.

I think the member is being a bit disingenuous when he says increased immigration levels are having no impact on our health care system.

[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, I think any reasonable person would believe the government should have at least an estimate of how many people are going to be impacted by a policy before it introduces it into law, passes it into law and proposes to implement it for Canadian citizens and the general public.

The fact is that it has not done that now, and, as many other members have mentioned, the Liberals have been on this and have been ready to introduce this legislation for 16, 19 years. They have tried to impose it two different times. They were on recess for half this year. Parliament is at the lowest record of sitting, I think, in Canadian history since the Depression.

Hopefully, they have done that homework. Maybe one of them will get up today and deliver that number for us.

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

Mr. Speaker, welcome to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

There is one thing I probably should have mentioned in my speech, and it hit me as the member was speaking. In this conversation, we are leaving out what will happen if we do not pass Bill C-3 expeditiously. If it is not passed by November 20, the bar on first generation citizenship that was brought in in 2009, which has been found to be unconstitutional, will just be automatic; they will all get citizenship if we do not do this as the court has required.

We have had extensions from the court, but it is not going to give this Parliament another extension, so we will not even have, as parliamentarians, the ability to create the kind of guidance that is in Bill C-3.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fair comment, and that is why we are proposing amendments to make this bill better. I look forward to my colleagues' proposing those recommendations. I think some of them have made some recommendations as to how to improve this bill in their comments earlier today.

We hope the Liberal government decides to adopt them so that, indeed, we have a framework that is robust for these folks who want to apply for Canadian citizenship.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here again after a summer in London engaging with constituents and listening to their concerns. I very much look forward to working with all colleagues in the House on matters of immigration, obviously, but, in general terms, we have a lot to do to serve our constituents and ensure that our country is on a very good footing going forward.

Today, obviously, with Bill C-3, we are debating an issue that, at its heart, speaks to our democracy, and that is citizenship. It was Hannah Arendt, the great philosopher, who said that citizenship is “the right to have rights”. That is because of the fact that from citizenship, all else follows in our democracy. There are no rights, there is no sense of belonging, without that fundamental value of citizenship and everything that means.

We know, for example, that all of us, or, I would assume, those of us who have been elected in a previous Parliament and those of us who are new in the chamber, newly elected, will go to citizenship ceremonies and see how special those ceremonies are. There is something quite valuable in that. I know that there is a debate and a discussion ongoing in Canada now about immigration levels, and I think the government is responding appropriately to that.

This is what I worry about, in fact, with the whole politicization of immigration that may be going on. I hope it is not going on, but I think it might be. When it comes to immigration, when that matter is politicized, we lose the understanding of the value of immigration and the sense of how special it is when citizenship comes through that process, but I digress.

We know that individuals, all of us, have natural inalienable rights: the right to dignity, the right to fundamental justice and the right to fair treatment. Citizenship strengthens that principle, because it codifies rights. In Canada, of course, we have the charter, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which stands at the heart of our democracy, making all else possible, including debates in the House of Commons. The document expresses, in the clearest terms, the rights of all of us and the rights that come, again, from citizenship. Without those rights, democracy cannot be said to exist.

The House is now considering Bill C-3. I give credit to anyone who has spoken on the matter but, in particular, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands made a spirited speech talking about court rulings of the past. I believe the NDP has put this on record, and I believe the Bloc has put it on record as well, that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling of December 2023 is something that cannot be ignored. The justices, in fact, have said that the problem that needs to be responded to by the government is the fact that citizenship is two-tiered at the present moment.

What does that mean? The court came to that decision because a Canadian who obtains citizenship either through birth or through the immigration process can freely transmit that citizenship to their children, but this is not true for a Canadian who is born abroad. Bill C-3 seeks to change this, so that Canadians born abroad can transfer that citizenship to their children if their children are also born abroad, provided that there is a substantial connection to Canada that is established. That connection is cumulative.

I heard the hon. member speak on the Conservative side, taking issue with that. One thing that he did not mention, interestingly, and I think this is key to this whole discussion, is that the 1,095 days that stands as the substantial connection test in the legislation, which is three years, is not drawn from thin air but represents and takes its cue from the requirement that permanent residents have when they seek to go through the immigration process and obtain citizenship. That is also a three-year requirement in terms of spending time in Canada.

The other point that cannot be lost on us is the fact that we live in a modern age in which mobility is crucial to so many jobs. Think of military officials or diplomats, or individuals who spend their time working abroad for non-governmental organizations. They need to be paid attention to here. We should put ourselves in their position.

If someone is in a position, in a role, where they were born abroad and do not have this ability to transfer citizenship, even though they have a Canadian tie, then there is an issue. The substantial connection test allows for that to be acknowledged and brought to bear in the force of law.

If my colleagues have concerns on the merits of the bill, then of course they can raise them at committee. However, I do not want to see a situation where this bill is obstructed needlessly. There is a court deadline, as we just heard. That court deadline is in November of this year. It is a deadline that must be adhered to. Otherwise, we would have a very significant gap in the law.

The reality is, if we are dealing with, as we are, a matter of citizenship and rectifying an issue that exists as identified by the court, then there is a special responsibility on all of us to work together so that the outcome ensures fundamental justice, ensures consistent citizenship and meets a particular standard. That 1,095-day period is exactly that; it is three years.

It is, as I say, not arbitrary by any means, but draws from existing Canadian law, and specifically immigration policy, relating to permanent residency, and that is why I think the bill needs to be supported. Certainly our side will be getting behind the bill. I hear the same from the Bloc. I hear the same from the NDP. I do not hear that from the Conservatives, but I hope that, at committee, their concerns will be assuaged somehow. We will have experts there to speak to the matter on a range of points that Conservatives wish to raise.

We have something very substantive here and I urge colleagues to get behind it.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, two points have been raised a number of times today, with the legislation as it is proposed, relating to language requirements and criminal history.

I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary whether there is any indication, any acceptance or agreement from the government that these things should be considered. We consider them with all other types of immigrants to Canada. We do not want to bring criminals into our country. I think there is a widely established agreement among Canadians. It is the same with language. It is very important that people coming to Canada can speak either English or French. I would like to know the parliamentary secretary's thoughts on those two points.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the hon. member on the committee responsible for immigration.

The Conservatives continue to bring up matters of crime and tie them to this bill. Again, it opens the door to the argument, wide open in fact, that they are trying to politicize immigration. I know the hon. member is not trying to do that; he is a respected member of this House.

I will focus on the other aspects of his question, only to say that there is nothing in this bill that is inconsistent with existing citizenship requirements. The bill simply seeks to rectify an existing and very significant gap in the law. We need consistent citizenship, and this is exactly what Bill C-3 would achieve.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that this bill is a revival of a previous bill and a response to a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court dating from late 2023, which gave the government six months to comply.

My question is as follows: Has the six-month deadline passed?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the court provided its perspective on a very important matter for the House, and there is an issue.

For that reason, we cannot get bogged down in what has happened in the past. I am not here to speak about the past. We can spend a great deal of time on that, but the courts have recognized that there are issues. They have put it to this House to rectify and they have given extensions when that has not happened in the past. We have an opportunity to do what is right. I urge colleagues to get behind it. I know my colleague will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would provide his thoughts on how we could continue to have the debate and even look at possible amendments. The members opposite have talked about the possibility of amendments.

Could the member provide his thoughts on how we could further advance the legislation and deal with the issue of people who should be citizens not being citizens because of a sense of unfairness within the current law that the Superior Court made a ruling on?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can do this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my wonderful constituents in Canada's number one riding, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. It was a great summer, and I appreciate all the feedback I received from them. I am motivated to serve on their behalf and to fight for the things that were discussed during the election, namely addressing the affordability crisis, the cost of living challenges that young families are facing, rising crime and a ballooning deficit that may be out of control. We do not know because we have not seen a budget tabled.

The government had all summer to work on all of those priorities. In fact, the Liberal platform, on page one and two, talked about being at war, “economic war”, with the United States, yet on our first day back, we are debating a bill and a major policy provision within that legislation that will fundamentally change what it means to be Canadian. This was not in the platform. It was not in the commitments made by the Prime Minister during the summer or really any time since he was appointed and subsequently elected to the top office in our country.

For people listening in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, the reason we have this legislation before us today is that in 2023, Justice Akbarali of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the 2009 provisions to the Citizenship Act were unconstitutional. The Trudeau government had the opportunity to appeal to subsequent courts. Maybe this legislation or this question before us today should have gone to the Supreme Court, but the government decided we were better to leave it in the hands of a provincial court and not have the superior court of our country, the Supreme Court of Canada, make a decision on what constitutes being a Canadian.

I will note that there are some provisions in this legislation that were originally in Bill S-245, namely the extension of citizenship to restore citizenship to lost Canadians who were affected between 1977 and 1981. There are also provisions for children adopted by Canadians to ensure that their citizenship held the same quality as Canadians born on Canadian soil. I will note that I support those two provisions. They are good provisions and I want to see them passed.

However, with respect to the substantive part of this legislation, namely the substantial connection clause outlined by the Ontario justice as a recommendation, I have very many concerns, mainly around the integrity of Canadian citizenship. What does it mean to be a Canadian in the 21st century? What are the duties of citizenship? What duties does the Government of Canada have toward its citizens? All of these questions should be debated today in the House of Commons and in subsequent days because this legislation will impact how we move forward and how we see citizenship.

I hope the minister, if this bill passes second reading, will answer those questions for all Canadians. How is it fair to the immigrants who spent years building a life here? What prevents another wave of Canadians of convenience who only show up for benefits? Why is the government lowering the bar by counting non-consecutive days under the substantial connection clause when other countries in the G7, for example, require far stricter rules for family ties?

I want the minister to outline how Bill C-3 will impact Canada's security. Under the current rules for IRCC, all immigrants, all those on work visas, all refugees go through some type of security check. By extending citizenship to the grandchildren of Canadians, I believe the minister should outline how Canada's public safety will be impacted.

The second thing I would like to discuss as it relates to extending citizenship to possibly hundreds of thousands of people around the world is how it would impact the responsibilities of Canadians to serve in the Canadian military during a war. What impact would this have on conscription?

Right now, for example, there are over 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong. There are probably over a million Canadians living in the United States. There are between 40,000 and 50,000 Canadians living in Lebanon. There are probably over 20,000 Canadians living in Pakistan.

If the government were to implement conscription, how would it apply to Canadians living abroad? Would they be required, like the children born here, to bear arms for Canada, or would they be exempt?

We have seen the second aspect of obligations related to this legislation bear out in previous natural disasters and conflicts around the world, namely in Lebanon. Indeed, former prime minister Harper brought in stricter generational limits to citizenship in response to the outcry from Canadians who wondered why the Government of Canada had to send the Royal Canadian Navy to rescue hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were living in Lebanon without any real ties to our country anymore but who still held Canadian citizenship.

The government did the right thing, something I support, and went and protected those people. By extending citizenship to possibly hundreds of thousands more people, the minister needs to come clean about what obligations the Government of Canada would have to those people and how it would respond to a humanitarian crisis where hundreds of thousands of Canadians might be living.

We do not have those answers, and the minister needs to come clean about how she would respond to those situations. We only need to look to Hong Kong and the conflicts we have seen there with the erosion of democracy. How would Canada respond to the citizens of Hong Kong in an emergency or in any other major conflict that could possibly erupt in Asia?

IRCC is very slow. IRCC does not do a very good job. In fact, it places an administrative burden on every single member in the House. I have to employ a full-time staff member to make up for the inability of a government department to do its job and properly process legitimate applications to reside in Canada on a daily basis.

When we take an oath as a member of Parliament, it is not to be a satellite office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. No, our job is to approve and disapprove the spending of Parliament, to be representatives and to pass legislation. The work we do is symptomatic of the failure of Canada's bureaucracy to uphold and fulfill its duties to Canadians.

With the passage of this legislation, the minister needs to be clear on what administrative burden the government will be putting on the overworked public servants at IRCC and the inability of management to fix the long-standing issues we see in the country.

Finally, as I am running out of time, the last point I would like to raise is on voting. If we extend citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are the descendants of people born in Canada, their grandchildren, how will that impact elections?

Let us think about Nepean. Mr. Chandra was ousted from the Liberal Party after he ran for Liberal leadership. The Prime Minister is now the member for Nepean. What would stop Mr. Chandra from organizing all of these new Canadians in India to vote against the Prime Minister in Nepean?

Citizens living abroad get to choose whatever riding they like to vote in under the Canada Elections Act. The minister needs to come clean about how citizenship and elections would be impacted by this legislation.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Canada Elections Act requires somebody to swear that they are voting in the last riding that they lived in in Canada, and they have to disclose that address. Would that not be correct, and would that not prevent some of what the hon. member is suggesting might happen?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I am raising. It would bring into legitimacy the ability of Canadians to uphold the integrity of the existing laws. The Elections Canada Act also provides the right for every Canadian to vote. I do not believe there would be the necessary provisions under the Canada Elections Act to prevent this from happening, and that is why I raise that point.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised many important points, particularly around the changing work in our constituency offices. I know that many offices face issues similar to what he has raised where a vast majority of our work is doing immigration caseload. I was wondering if he could get into a little more detail on some of what he is seeing in his riding.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing, which is that I have dealt with lost Canadians and the struggles they faced. I am glad that the bill includes the provisions from Bill S-245, which is very important. I want to see those people made whole, and I want to see that passed.

However, in general, there is a lot of pressure on my staff to deal with people in very precarious situations. It is the temporary foreign worker who has not had a proper work visa for the last couple of months who is now working under the table and is at risk of being trafficked. There is a lot of abuse in the temporary foreign worker program, and they come to MPs looking for help. They cannot get that help from government agencies. There is close to zero enforcement of our immigration policies in the Fraser Valley where we see a high proportion of Canada's immigrants first land.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made an empathetic comment about lost Canadians. The issue of the lost Canadians is dealt with in this bill, yet it would appear that the Conservatives want to filibuster this legislation. Why not recognize the good that is within the legislation and allow the legislation to be discussed and debated at committee stage so that we can actually pass the legislation?

I think the Conservatives are starting to already fall into their old ways of filibustering and not letting legislation pass when Canadians want us all to co-operate more.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on Bill C-3. It is maybe the second day of debate we have had on the bill in the 21 days of Parliament in 2025.

I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to listen to the words of the Prime Minister this morning when he spoke about all of the great women elected to the Liberal Party of Canada. Unfortunately, they do not get the opportunity to speak, because the member speaks multiple times during the day and other members of the Liberal caucus are not afforded the same opportunity to represent their constituents.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague have concerns about how Bill C-3 would create a bit of a two-tiered system when it comes to immigration, particularly with what is being proposed by the Liberals in that there would be no criminal record checks required for the in-perpetuity chain immigration?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to be very brief, I am concerned about two-tiered citizenship being created as a result of the bill. I hope that, if it moves forward to committee stage, the minister can come clean and outline, and listen to the positive feedback Conservatives have been providing in the House today to strengthen the provisions in response to the Ontario courts.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to extend my deepest thanks to the people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. Over the summer, I had the honour of connecting with so many of my constituents. I want to thank them in person, over the phone, through social media and by email.

I represent one of the most beautiful places in Canada. From Castlegar to Princeton, Grand Forks to Oliver, Midway to Penticton and all the communities in between, I heard our stories, our concerns and, most of all, I heard the pride we have for our country. I carry that with me every time I rise in the House. Today is no exception.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This is not a routine adjustment to our laws. This bill proposes to change the very definition of Canadian citizenship, and that should concern every one of us. At a time when our national identity, our core values and even our sovereignty are being tested, we must be vigilant.

This legislation touches the heart of what it means to be Canadian and, unfortunately, it misses the mark. Bill C-3, in this form, cheapens the value of Canadian citizenship, which so many people have worked so hard for. As someone who has had the privilege of becoming a Canadian citizen more than 25 years ago, I do not speak of citizenship lightly. I speak from a place of gratitude and a deep personal commitment to the country.

Canadian citizenship is not just a part of who I am; it is an honour that my family and I carry every day. It is a bond of loyalty that I will never take for granted, as it is for everyone in the House. It is the most valuable passport in the world.

That is why I oppose Bill C-3 in its current form. At the core of the bill is what the government calls a substantial connection requirement for passing on citizenship to children who are born abroad. That sounds sensible until we read the fine print. This requirement is just 1,095 non-consecutive days spent in Canada at any point in a parent's life, even in childhood. Let me be honest. That is not substantial. It is symbolic at best, a loophole at worst. It is not a serious test of one's connection to Canada. It is a back door to citizenship through convenience.

I have an acquaintance who lives in another country and currently has four passports. I believe this would allow her to have her fifth. Is that really what we want when we are looking for a Canadian citizen? She has never lived here before. Under this bill, someone could be born here, leave at age three, live the rest of their life abroad and still pass on citizenship to their grandchild, despite never having any ties to Canada after all those years. Is that really the standard we want, in terms of what it means to be Canadian?

Canadian citizenship should not be considered a fallback plan. It is not a souvenir from a visit and not a privilege to be passed down indefinitely, without connection, contribution or commitment. It should be earned and lived and shared. It is a legal status, of course, but also so much more. It is an identity rooted in belonging, responsibility and, most importantly, participation in Canadian life, yet the bill would risk stripping citizenship of that meaning, reducing it to a piece of paper available to those with the thinnest links to our country.

There is a possibility, although we do not know for sure, that this could add 150,000 more immigrants to our shores. It could cost $25 million or not, maybe more. Enough study has not been done. Could this buckle our health care system, our pension system and our immigration system, which is already struggling, as every member in the House will attest to through their office work?

Conservatives have always stood for citizenship that is fair, principled and deeply meaningful. We support restoring citizenship to those who were unjustly stripped of it in the past, the lost Canadians. We backed legislation led by Senator Yonah Martin to do exactly that. We also continue to support equal treatment for adoptive children born abroad. That is a long-standing Conservative principle and one that we have consistently defended as a party, but let me be absolutely clear: We will not support a government attempting to rewrite the rules of citizenship behind closed doors, without public debate and without a mandate from voters.

This change in citizenship was nowhere in the Liberals' 2025 election platform, so Canadians were never consulted until now, as MPs, we are debating this issue, and now this government wants to quietly reshape the future of Canadian citizenship without asking whether we as a nation are prepared for the consequences of how this would affect our health care system and our housing crisis. The committee work is going to need to be intense.

The government chose to accept the opinion of a single Ontario judge without appeal, without review and without even asking the Supreme Court for clarity. The ruling did not demand the changes we see in this bill. In fact, the judge clearly stated that Parliament retains authority to establish a genuine test of substantial connection, but instead the Liberals chose a definition so weak it could be met by a few childhood summer vacations.

I contrast us with our allies, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, all of which enforce much stricter requirements, including criminal record checks, for the transmission of citizenship. A criminal record check before receiving citizenship is necessary for the safety of the people who are living here in this country now. This bill does not even include this most basic safeguard.

Legal experts in immigration law are sounding the alarm. For example, Sergio Karas, who is a leading voice in the field, warned, “This requirement [for a substantial connection to Canada] could create a significant administrative burden [to Canada]”, and, “The subjective and...manipulable nature of proving a...connection could lead to inconsistencies and legal challenges”.

Canadian citizenship is the cornerstone of our national identity, and if we dilute it, we weaken the very fabric of our society. Our communities are hurting in so many ways as we speak. Conservatives are ready to do the hard work. We are prepared to collaborate in committee. We support the necessary parts of this legislation, the fair redress of those previously wronged and the recognition of adopted children as equals in citizenship laws, but we will not support a bill that weakens the very meaning of Canadian citizenship.

If the government refuses to accept amendments that protect the integrity of our laws and the value of our citizenship, then we have no choice but to oppose this legislation. Canadians deserve better. They expect their lawmakers to defend the value of being Canadian. Canadian citizenship must remain something to strive for, to earn and to cherish, not something to inherit without connection or without commitment. We will fight for that. We will defend that, because we believe in Canada.

I believe in Canada and the value of being Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member a hypothetical, but real, type of situation in which Nancy, who is in the Canadian Forces, goes abroad to Europe, has a child and then returns to Canada. Then, her child, for employment opportunities, goes back to Europe. The child that she might have would then be Nancy's grandchild. Should Nancy's grandchild be entitled to have Canadian citizenship?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that actually solidifies what I am talking about, in that what the member just said is so complicated. Does she deserve citizenship? She could, but I am going to have to write that down on paper and make sure. Does her grandchild's grandchild deserve citizenship? I would like to ask the member that, because this is so complicated and has not been debated properly in committee. We need to look at this clearly, and we need to make sure it is fair.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hypothetical case that was just raised illustrates exactly what Bill C-3 aims to regulate. A court has ruled on a similar case. A couple working in the public service had a child in Switzerland. They said that if their child were then to have a child abroad while working in an embassy or elsewhere, that child would not have Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 seeks to address that.

Citizenship must not be cheapened or devalued. Yes, we do need a complete overhaul of all operations and deficiencies at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. All of that is important. However, I really feel like we are living on two different planets. My reading of the bill is that it applies to those cases, children and so-called lost citizens. It is about making sure they get Canadian citizenship, and that is all.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to help the lost Canadians, and we need to make sure that the wrongs done in the past are corrected, but does somebody's grandchild's grandchild's grandchild deserve to be a citizen if they have never lived in Canada and have never had anything to do with Canada?

We are going to have to make sure that for those immigrants who became citizens in the past, who worked so hard to do that and have become an important part of our communities and of our country, this does not devalue how hard they have worked for Canadian citizenship.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the question from the member for Winnipeg North, because he acknowledged that, even in a hypothetical scenario, the economic situation is so dire that a Canadian needs to go overseas to find employment.

I have a question for my colleague, who I think exemplifies what it means to become a Canadian when one is born elsewhere, to love this country and to adopt this country as one's own. How does she feel, as someone who does not have Canada as her birth nation, about what it means to immigrants who build a life here and become Canadians, to have that citizenship devalued by legislation like this?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the value of Canadian citizenship is beyond what we are speaking about here. If we look at how many people have given their blood and toil to gain this citizenship, we know that it cannot be passed to somebody who has not had any tie to this country at all, or whose family for generations has not had ties.

Again, I look forward to our parties working together in committee to make sure that we really hone down on the rules for citizenship and make sure that it is fair to all citizens of Canada.

[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.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we have heard long speeches today on this bill, and as I mentioned earlier, this is not the first time that we have had to deal with this bill. Also, the opposition made a promise to lost Canadians who came here to Parliament, to our committee. The Speaker was a member of that committee and promised to make sure we would not leave any Canadians behind.

What does the member opposite have to say to those Canadians you spoke to, Mr. Speaker, and promised you would not leave behind?

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are not talking about leaving any Canadian citizens behind. We are concerned about who is going to become a Canadian citizen. We are not talking about leaving any Canadian citizens behind.

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

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague come up with an amendment to make that proposal acceptable and in line with the court's decision?

Under the current legislation, if diplomats have a child abroad and that child also has a child abroad while working as a diplomat, the grandchild will lose their Canadian citizenship. The court is telling us to fix this. The government is proposing something. In my opinion, this is a routine issue that needs to be corrected.

What legislative wording could be proposed to resolve this without causing the problems my colleague raised?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to my colleagues on the citizenship and immigration committee to make those specific amendments. What we see is a bill that has no limits. This goes on for generation after generation after generation with no significant tie to Canada.

I think of my grandparents. My grandfather Jesse Pullin fought in the First World War for England. He immigrated to Canada in 1925, became a Canadian citizen and went back and served for Canada in the Second World War. He fought for Canada. He fought for his citizenship and the right to live in a democratic society. We cannot diminish the value of citizenship that people like my grandfather instilled upon this country.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back. I am thankful for the opportunity to ask a question to my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

I recall the troubling case of Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi, who was granted citizenship despite alleged ties to ISIS. There was no vetting whatsoever. What confidence does the member have, in this bill or the system itself, that such a major blunder would not occur again?

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the past 10 years of governance by the Liberal government have broken the trust Canadians placed in the Canadian immigration system. There are hundreds of non-citizens somewhere in this country who were convicted or are guilty of criminal offences, but the government has lost track of where they are. It has no idea. That is the type of mistrust and mismanagement that the former and now relatively unchanged Liberal government has brought to Canada. We need to find balance, as I said in my speech.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's time and effort in putting on the record a number of situations that have had a fairly profound impact. That is why it is so important that we see some form of the legislation actually pass. If we were to focus, let us say, on this and Bill C-2, a couple of bills, and every member were to speak to the legislation, we would not even be able to bring in the budget until the end of November or beginning of December, or that type of thing. At the end of the day, we need to see this legislation sent to committee.

I wonder if the member opposite could provide his thoughts in terms of the important role that a standing committee of the House can play in terms of improving legislation and advancing it, keeping in mind the superior court's decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is important for you to rule on the rules, because the member opposite suggested that somehow debating this bill is preventing the Liberals from bringing in a budget. Would you, Mr. Speaker, be able to clarify that the amount of time we spend debating this bill has absolutely nothing to do with the timeline available to the government, and, in fact, they could have brought—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There is no rule being broken. This is a matter of debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we, as legislators, are the only elected officials in the entire system, which goes from judges and the Senate to ministers and the Prime Minister. We legislators are elected. In that sense, we are all the government's boss.

If the government introduces a bill that elicits concern or opposition from elected members, those members are duty-bound to raise those concerns in the House and launch the debate by telling the government that they are not on board and that they have doubts, concerns or issues. That is the basis of the parliamentary system we practise here.

I have no problem with debate. It is the government's job to make sure it talks to all MPs and all parties to see if there is a way to speed things up. If there is not a way, and if a lot of MPs want to talk about a bill, that may mean the government did not communicate the information properly.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan, who will soon be celebrating his tenth year as a parliamentarian here, in the House of Commons. I want to congratulate him. I notice that there are a few of us here in the House who will soon be celebrating our tenth year.

I was extremely impressed by the quality of my colleague's fact-based speech, especially the history leading up to the current situation. I congratulate him on his expansive knowledge of Canada's history.

However, I want to remind him that, at the end of his speech, he mentioned a reality which I am sure is a common occurrence for all parliamentarians, every week, on all sides, whether they are members of the government, the official opposition, the second opposition party, independent members associated with the NDP or other independent members. Every week, as parliamentarians, we are confronted with dozens of mishandled, problematic immigration cases.

Could the member tell us how things are going in his riding? In his opinion, how much of the blame lies with the people who have been governing us for the past 10 years?

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague and friend who will also soon be celebrating 10 years in the House. We were elected at the same time on October 19, 2015, although he served as a member of the Quebec National Assembly before that, and I did not.

I also want to thank him for his kind words about the history I gave on this bill. I try to learn as much as I can about the history of Quebec and Canada. However, the Bloc Québécois relies on a tremendous team of researchers who help us put what we already know into words.

The problems in my riding are growing. I would say that about half of the constituency casework that I do to help the people of Joliette is related to the Department of Immigration, and it is not as though I am serving in a downtown Montreal or downtown Toronto riding. This act should have been reformed 10 years ago to simplify the process. It is a matter of dignity.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan for his excellent speech.

Earlier, a Conservative colleague said that if this bill were passed, people with no connection to Canada could end up becoming citizens. However, I believe that this is addressed in the wording of Bill C-3, which states that a substantial connection is required.

What I find a little more troubling is that she wondered whether people who apply for citizenship would deserve it. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this. Really, is a child born in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt in order to give the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan the opportunity to respond in less than 10 seconds.

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I read Bill C-3, its purpose is to resolve this issue. It is not a question of being deserving or not. If the parents and grandparents were temporarily abroad at birth, it should—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings of the House.

The House resumed from September 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, provinces need to do a better job of recognizing the skills that immigrants bring to the country, in particular in health care. That has been a chronic problem since I was first elected back in 1988. Provinces must take the lead.

The member made reference to immigration and tried to blame immigration for the capacity problem in health care today. Some of the greatest shortages among doctors in Canada today are in the province of Manitoba, and both the premier and the Minister of Immigration in Manitoba want the current immigration levels to stay. They want everyone who is in Manitoba to stay in Manitoba. They want to increase the numbers.

Does that not conflict with what the member is saying? Does he believe the home province we share is wrong on its immigration request?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did say in my speech that we need immigration, without a doubt, but we cannot ignore the fact that our health care system is absolutely overburdened. We will not even allow professionals who have been trained abroad a pathway to practise in the profession that they have been trained in in other countries. That is just insane.

The Liberal government has propped up that same failing system for the last 10 years, and as the member admitted, he has done nothing about it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to that. At every opportunity I get, I advocate for recognizing the credentials that immigrants bring to Canada. The member and the Conservative Party need to realize that we cannot just say we will have a blue seal program. There is no depth whatsoever to that program. This is something we have to get the provinces to agree to and participate in.

Has the Conservative Party done any engagement with the provinces to give any legitimacy at all to their blue seal program?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we have had lots of engagement right across this nation.

I was in Nova Scotia during the summer. I have talked a lot to provinces across this country, and right across this country, we are hearing that there are millions of Canadians waiting for a family doctor now, 6.5 million Canadians. We have immigrants coming in, trained professionals, from other countries, and we have seen no uptake. They have no path forward. That is what the blue seal program is about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Riding Mountain for his connection with communities over the summer. I watched his social media. He managed to connect with the people.

We are dealing today with a government bill that is identical to a bill that was brought forward in the previous Parliament. The Liberals rejected amendments then, and the bill did not make it through the last Parliament, but they brought it back without change. It is like the old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Can the member tell me what he has heard from constituents in his riding? Why does he think the Liberals are not listening to people?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I have heard across the country is that citizenship is very precious to Canadians. We cherish it very much. It is a privilege and world-renowned. Canadian passports are sought after, and people from all over the world know that.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have taken an approach where they have cheapened it. They have basically said that people can come from anywhere, live here a little while and have full access to all our programs and all the great things that make Canada the fantastic nation it is. What I am hearing from constituents and people right across this country is that we please protect our Canadian citizenship and work to make it so it is cherished and upheld by the rest of the world.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here and to talk on behalf of the great people of Dufferin—Caledon, who have re-elected me to come to the House of Commons and fight for common sense, which is often a difficult thing to do with the Liberal government.

This piece of legislation is the perfect example of why we have to fight. I want to talk a bit about how the Liberals have absolutely destroyed the consensus in Canada on immigration, botched the immigration system in so many ways and brought that incompetent approach to this particular piece of legislation. The consequences for this will be far and wide, and, ultimately, Canadians will pay the price, as they have done for all the Liberal mistakes, errors, debacles and corruption over the past 10 years.

What pains me the most in talking about the breakdown of the consensus on immigration and refugees in this country is the fact that my wife came to Canada as a refugee. She is a Kosovar Albanian. Canada had a wonderful program, Operation Parasol, to bring Kosovar Albanians fleeing the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo at that time.

To see the reports from the past 10 years on the decline of the consensus in Canada, known as a beacon of acceptance for immigration and refugees, because of Liberal incompetence is really heartbreaking. I think most Canadians are heartbroken because of this.

There are a couple of polls that address this, which are really, in my estimation, tragic. Pollara had a study in 2025 that compared views from 2002 to 2025. In 2002, immigration was viewed as a positive plus 31. In 2025, it is now down to a plus 2. That is a 29-point decline as a result of the mess that the Liberals have made with respect to the immigration system. These are catastrophic declines.

Looking at the share of people who believe that Canada is accepting too many immigrants, again, we go back to 2002 and it was 34%. We look at 2025 and it is now at 60%.

Who is responsible for that? It is not the fault of the people who have come to Canada. They came to Canada because they wanted the opportunities and better life Canada provides, just as my wife and her family did. My wife came to Canada with English as a second language. In fact, she spoke no English and went to high school; she went on to get a master's degree, and she has had a great career. That is the epitome of why people come to Canada, because of the opportunities this great country affords.

When we look at what the Liberals have done, at the mess they have made of the immigration system, it is a tragedy for all Canadians. The buck stops 100% with the people on the other side. It is their fault because they have made this absolute mess.

I could talk for three hours about the actual specifics of the mess, but I would point out that at one point, the Liberal government allowed an accused ISIS terrorist to immigrate to Canada. This person was accused of being in a video in 2015 in which they dismembered someone, and the Liberals let this person come to Canada. This is the disrepute they have brought the system into.

In 2024, I did an OPQ, and I asked how many people were processing applications in CIC and how many applications were actually coming in. Then we could do some simple math. I know math is not great for the Liberals; they think that an affordable housing program is 4,000 houses for $13 billion, so math is not their strong suit. However, when we actually broke down the number of people who were processing the applications and the number of applications coming in, because the Liberals had set the levels so high, it worked out that someone assessing an immigration application had 30 minutes per application. One can imagine how someone such as the person I just described ended up in Canada. When we increase the volumes of people to such high levels and have no security screening, we end up with the challenges we have.

Now the Liberals have brought forward a piece of legislation on citizenship. I will say, I am a proud Canadian. I know my wife is a proud Canadian, and her whole family are proud Canadians as well.

The Liberals have created a very weak substantial connection test. What does that mean?

Most people who are listening will not understand what that means, so I am going to explain it. It means that, according to the Liberals, if a person wants to have Canadian citizenship extended to them and their children for generations, they have to spend 1,095 nonconsecutive days in Canada.

They have not even said what the proof for that is. Somebody can say they spent 1,095 days in Canada over the last 25 years, and their children, their children's children and so on will all get Canadian citizenship. This is weakening Canadian citizenship.

The Liberals do not even know the numbers of people this would affect, how many people this citizenship is going to be extended to. Also, there would be no security checks. We just talked about how the lack of security checks let an alleged ISIS terrorist into Canada, someone who was on a video in 2015 dismembering someone, but they do not think security checks would be an important part of extending citizenship to people who have no real connection to Canada.

Maybe they spent 1,095 days in Canada at some point over their lifetime, maybe not, because we do not know how they are going to prove it, and they do not have to have a security check. The Liberals are going to try to say that this is all very normal, that they are solving a problem. It is not normal. This approach is not normal in the developed world. The United States, Britain, France and Italy all cap citizenship to the first generation born abroad.

This is important because there is value in Canadian citizenship, and they are going to extend this to all kinds of people who have very little connection to Canada. We actually do not have the numbers on how far that will extend. We have maybe some estimates, but even the government does not know.

This, of course, does not surprise me, because the Liberals come up with things on the back of a napkin and never know what the consequence is going to be. It was much like this when I was the shadow minister for the environment, and I asked the deputy minister at the time what the actual build-out of the cost of the charging network all across Canada would be when we get to the 100% zero-emission vehicle mandate.

They looked at me and said they have not calculated that to the end point. They are going to mandate that no one gets to drive a gas-powered vehicle, that all vehicles have to be zero-emission vehicles, but they do not know what the cost of the charging network is going to be. That is how Liberals have run this country for the last 10 years, which is why we are in the mess we are in on a whole host of levels.

I just had a town hall in the town of Bolton a couple of weeks ago, and immigration was absolutely on the agenda. When I talk about the statistics of the decline in support for immigration, I can say that I felt it in person at that meeting. People are saying the numbers are too high.

I did not get the opportunity to do so, but if I had talked about this particular piece of legislation, I know what the good people of Dufferin—Caledon would have said. They would have said it is ridiculous. Many of the people in that town hall are immigrants; they came to this country because they wanted the opportunity Canada provides. They would have been outraged by the decision to do this.

What has been the consequence of the mess the Liberals have made of immigration in Canada? We can look at the jobs market. The big topic of discussion at my town hall was that my constituents' sons and daughters cannot get jobs. This is one of the reasons we have said we are eliminating the temporary foreign worker program: Far too many people have come into this country and taken jobs away from Canadians. The TFW program is a part of that problem.

The Liberal mess on immigration is going to take a very long time to fix. When we look at this, we see another absolute mess happening that the Liberals did not need to make. They could have fixed this problem very simply, but they did not. They chose a weak test; with 1,095 days at any point in someone's life, they get Canadian citizenship and they can then pass it on to their children.

This is a terrible piece of legislation. Conservatives fought it in the last Parliament. We will fight it in this Parliament, and we will seek to make amendments to bring some common sense to this terrible piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for outlining the issues that we on this side of the House have with this piece of legislation. I know he has mentioned his wife and his wife's family, who came to Canada and have embraced becoming Canadian citizens.

I wonder if he could comment on what the impact is of reducing the requirement to obtain citizenship on those individuals who are coming to Canada, who are going through the process, who are perhaps even fleeing persecution. What impact does that have on those individuals who have gone through a very lengthy process?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a perfect point on this. The people who came to Canada because they wanted a better life played by the rules. They worked hard. They made fantastic lives and contributions to this country. They are going to look at this as an affront to the hard work that they did to come to Canada and become successful and proud Canadian citizens. They would be outraged about someone who has spent almost no time in the country getting Canadian citizenship.

The days are not even consecutive. A person could have spent something like 10 days in Canada over 30 years. Basically, if they vacationed here for 10 days over 30 years, they are going to get Canadian citizenship. It is outrageous. We are against it and we will fight it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cited immigration in 2002 as being really good. I acknowledge that. What he does not do is cite the many years in which Harper's administration was a disaster for immigration. They, for example, deleted applications, with literally hundreds of thousands of individuals who were in the process of coming to Canada. They had seven-year waiting times to sponsor a parent, and they cancelled the parents and grandparents program. There were serious problems that we were able to rectify.

Today's issue is more about the temporary visas. The current Prime Minister has indicated that we are going to get on the right track. We are working aggressively to do that.

In the example of Anna in the forces, she goes abroad, has a child and comes back; her child then goes abroad to work. Should the child of that individual, or Anna's grandson or granddaughter, have the opportunity—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the hon. member a chance to respond.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether his statements about the Conservative record on immigration are due to ignorance or whether they are malicious, but either way, they are completely erroneous and false—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they are neither. They are factual.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

As the parliamentary secretary well knows, that is a matter of debate.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when former prime minister Harper took over, there was a massive backlog in the parent and grandparent category that they took over from the Liberals, around 150,000 people. We were left with the mess that they left. It was the same thing in every single category. What we actually did was put a temporary pause on the parent and grandparent application process, and then we cleared the entire backlog. He is standing here and trying to say that everything was rosy under a Liberal government and then, somehow, things changed. I know I am not allowed to use certain words in this place but what he is saying is worse than categorically false.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is just factually incorrect. I was the critic at the time. If the member was there, he would know that, actually, the waiting times to get a spouse through was years in the Harper era. The Harper government literally cancelled the parent and grandparent sponsorship program. The reason they cancelled it is that it was such a disaster that it took up to seven years to sponsor a parent or grandparent to come to Canada. Harper was a disaster on immigration as a whole.

Would the member not confess to the reality of the situation? After all, he was there and I am sure he can recall that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I confess that the member lives in an alternate reality, because this was how they set up the parent and grandparent program: An unlimited number of people could apply, then they let in 14,000 people. All of those other people went on a waiting list. The next year, they would open it up. An unlimited number of people could apply, and they would let 14,000 in. All the rest went on a waiting list, and so on and so on. That is how they managed the parent and grandparent category. It was an absolute mess. We had to clean it up. Guess what, a Conservative government is going to clean up a lot of messes, including—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to rise in the House again after some time in my riding speaking with constituents and hearing directly from Canadians. It is always a privilege to stand here and debate legislation that touches not only on national policy but also on the very fabric of what it means to be Canadian.

We are debating Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This bill speaks to Canadian identity itself and to the value of Canadian identity. Let us be clear. Canadian citizenship is not just a piece of paper or a passport. It is also a promise. It is a promise of loyalty, commitment and shared responsibility. It represents hard-won freedoms and responsibilities that generations of Canadians have defended and cherished.

Conservatives have always believed that citizenship must be fair, secure and meaningful. It must reflect a genuine connection to this country, not just in words but also in participation and commitment. Unfortunately, Bill C-3 undermines these principles.

There are parts of the bill we do support. We agree that the adopted children of Canadian citizens born abroad should be treated equally with biological children. That is fair, just and long overdue. We also agree that the injustice done to lost Canadians, those Canadians who fell through the gaps in the law through no fault of their own, must be corrected. These are people who grew up here, worked here, paid taxes and lived as Canadians and who should never have been in doubt. Fixing those wrongs is the right thing to do.

However, where this bill fails, and fails profoundly, is in its removal of the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent and its replacement with a flimsy so-called substantial connection test. That safeguard, introduced by the previous Conservative government in 2009, was put in place for good reason. We saw, in 2006, what happens when citizenship can be passed down endlessly without connection. During the Lebanon conflict, thousands of Canadians of convenience, people with little or no real ties to Canada, sought evacuation at enormous cost to Canadian taxpayers. Nearly $94 million was spent bringing 14,000 people to safety, many of whom returned abroad as soon as the crisis ended. That incident showed us the danger of limitless citizenship inheritance. The first-generation limit was a necessary, reasonable measure to protect the value of Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 throws that safeguard out the window.

Under the Liberals' new connection test, a parent could pass on citizenship if they lived in Canada for just 1,095 nonconsecutive days at any point in their life. That could mean three years spent here decades ago as a student before moving abroad permanently. That is not a substantial connection. It is one under the Liberals' plan, but it is not a real substantial connection. This is a brief chapter, not a life, yet this bill treats it as equal to the lifelong commitment of Canadians who build communities, raise families and invest in our future here. It is not fair, equal or responsible. What message does this send to newcomers who follow every rule, study for and pass the citizenship test, meet the residency requirements and undergo full security checks? These individuals invest years of their lives in Canada before earning citizenship. Meanwhile, under this bill, others could inherit citizenship automatically without ever paying taxes, speaking an official language or engaging in Canadian society. That is a two-tier system and it devalues the hard work of genuine immigrants.

There are also serious security implications. Bill C-3 does not require a criminal background check for those inheriting citizenship under this so-called connection. Conservatives proposed reasonable amendments to address this, including measures to exclude those with serious criminal records. The Liberals voted them down. At a time when Canadians are concerned about public safety, this is entirely reckless.

Let us be clear about the costs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has warned that this change could create over 115,000 new citizens almost immediately, many of whom live permanently abroad, but we have no idea what the real numbers are. Processing these cases will cost at least $21 million up front, with far higher long-term costs to health care, pensions and other services. Canadians who work hard and pay taxes their whole lives will be asked to subsidize citizens of convenience who have never contributed a dime to our country.

Meanwhile, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is already overwhelmed. Constituents across this country tell us about endless delays for visitor visas, family reunifications and citizenship ceremonies. The Ontario Superior Court has even ruled that the IRCC has a 50% error rate in processing, yet the Liberals want to add tens of thousands of new cases with no plan, no resources and no clear analysis of the impact.

Peer countries are far more cautious. The United States, United Kingdom, France and Italy all limit citizenship by descent to the first generation abroad. Canada is an outlier under this Liberal scheme and not in a good way. As immigration lawyers and experts have warned, this bill is a reckless response to a flawed court ruling and extends citizenship far beyond any reasonable connection.

Canadian citizenship is precious. It is not an insurance policy for those who want to live abroad and return only when trouble strikes. It is not a convenience for those who want benefits without responsibility. It must mean more. Conservatives oppose aspects of this bill because it cheapens Canadian citizenship, undermines fairness and exposes taxpayers to enormous risk. We do not even know what the extent of the risk is because no analysis has been done. We support targeted reforms for adopted children and lost Canadians, but we reject the removal of the first-generation safeguard.

Former Liberal minister Lucienne Robillard once said that we ought “to share our citizenship with those who want it and work hard to deserve it.” Conservatives agree. Canadian citizenship must be earned, not given away like candy or Liberal promises. Citizenship is not just a document. It is a commitment to Canada, its people and its future. Only common-sense Conservatives will ensure that it remains strong, meaningful and respected around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a hypothetical example that reflects the reality in many ways.

Let us say we have Anna, a member of the Canadian Forces posted overseas. During her posting overseas, she has a child. Then she comes back to Canada with her child. As the years go by, her child gets a job opportunity in Europe. As a direct result of that, if her daughter has a child, questions about citizenship would be raised.

Does the member believe the grandchild of Anna, a member of the Canadian Forces who had the posting overseas, is a Canadian?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deal with hypotheticals. There are all sorts of hypotheticals we could weave together to make some sort of narrative. I am not going to do that.

These things will be dealt with as they come up through the courts, as you know. I am not going to deal with hypotheticals. I can come up with 10 dozen hypotheticals for you too.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Just before we continue, on the word “you”, questions go through the Speaker. I will not be responding.

The member for Long Range Mountains.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the requirement for the criminal record check is not written within the legislation. This is something that I am extremely concerned about. It is something that I hear.

I am just curious if my colleague would like to speak to that or expand on that a bit more. I would give him the opportunity to respond if this is a concern that he also has.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer presents itself in our history.

We have let numerous people who should not be here through. Often, the problem is the lack of criminal record check. We must safeguard our borders. We have to do that for our own sake and we have to do it for international reasons. We cannot simply open the gates and let people in without any sort of criminal record check at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member advise the House if, in his review of this legislation, he has seen a plan to solve the new influx of citizenship applications, if we are going to add 30% more in just five years?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no analysis. We have no idea whether it is 30%. We have no idea what the actual number of new Canadian citizens will be, and this is at a time when our immigration system is buckling, frankly, from too many people coming in. To add to that is reckless, as I said in the speech. It is irresponsible and it is reckless. There has been no analysis done whatsoever.

This is kind of the way the Liberal government has operated: Do things because they sound good on paper, without any analysis. They end up creating a new disaster. There are several disasters that we are dealing with right now because of that problem.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the hypothetical example that I gave to the member.

Often, when we look at legislation, we reflect on the need for that legislation based on what is happening abroad or in our communities. I have a legitimate question and I ask the member for, at the very least, his own personal opinion. In the case that I raised about Anna, should her grandson or granddaughter be allowed to have Canadian citizenship? She should not have to go to a court to make that determination. We are saying, yes, Anna's granddaughter or grandson would in fact be able to have Canadian citizenship.

Does the member believe that should be the case?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make a judgment on a hypothetical. Again, a hypothetical question has been put to me that I have no answer for. The courts certainly do have an answer for it.

I would simply ask the member to reflect on some of the people we have let in who should not be here.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3 and the transformative power of Canadian citizenship. Fundamentally, this bill is about people from real families, as well as their history, their sacrifices and their deep and lasting ties with Canada, regardless of where their careers or lives take them.

In my role as an MP since 2015, I have had the opportunity to meet many families in my riding who were reunited through immigration. I did not experience that with my own family. The Lauzons in Notre‑Dame‑de‑la‑Paix, Petite‑Nation and Gatineau have no family ties with people in other nations. However, I have been able to learn about this through the cases that we have handled in my office and through the assistance that we have been able to provide to families. We have seen how important family reunification is.

Fundamentally, this bill is about people from real families. Citizenship is a legal status, of course, but more than that, it is about belonging to a diverse, welcoming community bound by shared democratic values. This is something that reaches across borders and, in an ideal world, we would be able to unite all families, but that is not possible. However, in today's interconnected world, where migration and mobility are facts of modern life in Canada, we have a chance, as Canadians, to lead by example and show the rest of the world how important family unification is.

While some countries are restricting access to citizenship, Canada is taking a more principled approach, one that embraces diversity, cross-border families and the lasting ties Canadians have abroad. Many Canadians live and work abroad in international development, the arts, culture, science, education, global commerce or humanitarian aid, to name a few. These citizens have their own deep ties to Canada, often returning here to raise their children, care for loved ones and create new communities. Ensuring that their children, whether born or adopted abroad, can share in this identity is not only a matter of fairness, it also strengthens our country's unity and global reach.

Today, I want to share with the House what new Canadians have told us about the importance of their citizenship, what they have told me since 2015. We have had conversations with new Canadian families about the importance of reuniting children and grandchildren, about the impact citizenship has had and about how we must continue to protect the rights, responsibilities and shared value of citizenship. Becoming a Canadian is a privilege, and it is often described as a source of great pride.

Our government carefully designed this bill to fill a gap that has existed since 2009. People are proud to call Canada their home and proud of the journey they took to get here. Becoming a Canadian citizen represents the culmination of years of sacrifice, hard work and perseverance, not only by individuals, but often by their entire families. A lot of compromises may have had to be made, sorely testing these families. Gaining citizenship is also a moment for connection and community, a chance to be part of something bigger than ourselves. Many members of the House have seen first-hand the emotional impact of this moment. Newcomers, often with their children by their side, hold their certificates with pride, knowing that their family's future is more secure here, in this wonderful country.

This sense of pride transcends borders. People all over the world would love the opportunity to make Canada their home. For those fleeing conflict, persecution or hardship, Canadian citizenship represents a fresh start, a new life, a second chance at life. Most people see it as a privilege and do not take it lightly. New citizens often express how profoundly grateful they are. People often talk about the opportunities that Canada has to offer, especially when it comes to education, health care and peace. These pillars of Canadian life are the cornerstones of a better future, not only for new citizens themselves, but also for their children and future generations.

Whether through volunteering, participating in local cultural events or simply getting to know their neighbours, new Canadians play an active role in strengthening the fabric of our society. They embody Canada's spirit of generosity and contribute to the success of their communities in many ways. We all have people like this in our lives today, especially as federal MPs in Ottawa.

As a government, we must remain vigilant to ensure that Canadian citizenship remains a symbol of inclusiveness, fairness and security, as well as a commitment to those values.

Why is Bill C‑3 important for me? It is the reason why we introduced this bill. It is to ensure that access to citizenship remains fair and transparent. At a time when disinformation and division can threaten confidence in public institutions, Canada must show that its commitment to fairness extends across borders.

Providing thoughtful and inclusive pathways to citizenship beyond the first generation affirms that Canadian identity is shaped not only by place of birth but also by connection, contribution and values. The government's role is not limited to protecting the rights of Canadian citizens. It must also clarify the citizenship process and pass laws that take equality and inclusion into account.

This bill aims to automatically remedy the status of individuals who would have been Canadians were it not for the first-generation limit. It also creates a forward-looking new framework for citizenship by descent. In the future, children born abroad beyond the first generation will be eligible for citizenship if their Canadian parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. In the future, as long as the Canadian parent who was born abroad spends a cumulative total of three years in Canada before the birth of their child, their child will also be born a citizen.

The objective and structure of the Citizenship Act have been that children adopted abroad by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadians are treated as similarly as possible, and this will continue to be the case after Bill C‑3 comes into force.

The great privilege of Canadian citizenship comes with great responsibility. It is a responsibility to engage, to contribute and to build on the values that make our country what it is. Citizenship is not just a destination. It is a journey and a commitment to community, justice and mutual respect.

In conclusion, Canadian citizenship is an important and emotional occasion. It is a privilege that comes with opportunities and gratitude, along with a responsibility to uphold the values that unite us. Citizenship is not just a legal matter. It is a reflection of who we are and who we include. By passing Bill C‑3, we are choosing connection over exclusion and fairness over restriction. We are telling Canadians around the world and their children that their ties to our country are important, that their history, their contribution and their sense of belonging are part of what makes Canada strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, we often see that the Liberals do not plan into the future with legislation they bring to the House.

We often hear of indigenous people speaking about the consideration of seven generations into the future. Can the member opposite tell me what work his government has done to determine how many new citizens of Canada the legislation would create seven generations into the future, and what the numbers are of new citizens it would bring in seven generations into the future? Surely the government must have looked at this to see what the numbers are.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to answer my colleague's question.

We are talking about family reunification, about a government that cares deeply about helping families reunite. That being said, I would like my colleague to answer a specific question. How many families have not been able to be together since 2009, when the Harper government made changes to the family class rules?

Those measures broke families apart. Now we are trying to fix the Harper government's mistakes.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is with regard to the importance of the legislation, in particular with respect to lost Canadians. Lost Canadians should have Canadian citizenship, which I think all members agree on; at least I believe that to be the case.

I would ask him to comment on the importance of passing the legislation so those individuals in particular would be able to get their citizenship.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Family reunification is an important value for Canadians, and it is part of the Liberal DNA. One of the primary reasons I entered politics in 2015 is that we are a welcoming country. Canada is known for being inclusive, and we are there for all communities.

Personally, I had the good fortune to live surrounded by family, an entirely Quebec Canadian family whose members all lived roughly in the same area. Since 2015, however, I have been deeply moved by the countless applications from people in my riding that allowed us to help several families reunite, including reuniting children with their parents. To me, that is the essence of life itself.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks of past mistakes made by the Conservatives. I have to tell him, in all honesty, that what the Liberals have done over the past 10 years is make one mistake after nother. They welcomed so many people to Canada that now they are forced to send some back, like the temporary foreign workers.

We are hearing heart-wrenching horror stories about families being separated, about people who have been here for years, working and contributing to Canadian society. We are being accused of things we did 15 years ago. In reality, we did not do what we are being accused of, yet my colleague has been making mistakes for the past 10 years and is still making mistakes today as we debate this issue.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to brush up on his history. It was decisions made in 2009 that led to a generational break in family reunification. It was written into the law. I cannot make this stuff up. That was when the value placed on family reunification and Canadian citizenship began to be reduced. Today, a court ruling is forcing us to introduce a bill to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, respect human rights and correct the mistakes of the past.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would like a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, September 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-3.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #36

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement and the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes.