Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for your invitation.
As you know, we're here to answer questions for the first hour on Bill C-3, which faces a firm deadline. The court struck the first-generation limit as it existed as unconstitutional in December 2023. Since then, IRCC has been granted multiple extensions to allow Parliament to pass remedial legislation, and the deadline we're working with is November 20.
I want to stress that unless Parliament passes legislation, citizenship by descent will have no limit for many, and some lost Canadians will remain in limbo. To prevent that, we've put forward a responsible, controlled measure in Bill C-3.
The bill has two main objectives: It confers citizenship on those impacted by the first-generation limit, including the remaining lost Canadians, and it provides fair access to citizenship by descent going forward.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has said that our current hard cap, based on the first generation, is unconstitutional. With that in mind, this bill is a reasonable response.
Under Bill C-3, in future cases where a Canadian parent was born or adopted abroad, their child born or adopted abroad will be able to access citizenship as long as the parent has a substantial connection to Canada.
If the parent spent at least three years in Canada before the child's birth or adoption, their child will be a Canadian citizen or have access to the direct grant of citizenship for adoptions.
This approach was chosen because it is similar to the 1,095-day physical presence requirement for naturalization. It also avoids creating new lost Canadians. If we required those days to be consecutive or to be squeezed into a fixed window, we would shut out people who have already spent more than three years here, but over several periods, like children who move abroad with their parents every couple of years.
This is a technical discussion, and I have department officials with me to speak to specific details if those questions arise.
Key parts of the existing legislation have been found to be unconstitutional. It's our responsibility to define the boundaries of the right to citizenship conferred by Bill C-3 and to put clear parameters on how it is to be applied. We've heard concerns that Bill C-3 could mean hundreds of thousands of new citizens, which would put pressure on social services.
We know that between January 2024 and July 2025, we received just over 4,200 applications for discretionary grants of citizenship under the interim measure for those affected by the first-generation limit. Previous amendments in 2009 and 2015 saw about 20,000 people apply for proof of citizenship, with fewer than 2,400 applications in the busiest year.
Based on that evidence, we anticipate volumes in the tens of thousands over time. We do not expect any surge. Net fiscal impacts are expected to be limited. Some in this cohort are already here in Canada, contributing to general revenues, and those abroad are generally not eligible for most Canadian social programs.
Here, it's important to note that each program or service, whether it's federal or provincial, has its own eligibility criteria, which, in addition to citizenship, would include age, income level, legal status in Canada, tax filing, and residency in Canada or a specific province or territory for a specific period of time.
We've also heard suggestions that the bill should impose security checks on people who become recognized as Canadian under Bill C‑3, a cohort that, I should note, is largely made up of low-risk children.
Citizenship by descent has never required security or criminality screening. Bill C-3 is consistent with the 2009 and 2015 amendments.
Bill C-3 reflects both the value of Canadian citizenship and the reality of how Canadian families live today.
I welcome the committee's questions.
Thank you very much.