Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2025

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

Madam Chair, Bill C-3 is reasonable legislation that finds a limit for the first-generation limit. We are required by the Constitution to have proper legislation in front of us, and that is why we're here today.

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

Yes, but you chose not to appeal a court ruling and to then table a chain migration bill. That is your government's decision.

You can't answer where these people are going to live. You can't answer how they're going to get a family doctor, when many Canadians don't have a family doctor. Where are they going to work during the youth jobs crisis? Are they going to sit on EI benefits while you continue to issue TFW permits for Tim Hortons?

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

Again, as I said in my remarks, there are rules in place in every jurisdiction in this country, whether it's provincial or federal, about who's entitled to receive what. There are age requirements, requirements for paying taxes and so on. That is not something whereby, as the member suggests, there will be no jobs happening.

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

You have tabled a chain migration bill. There are at least 115,000 people, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer—

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm not sure what chain migration bill she's talking about. I thought we were studying Bill C-3, which is actually about—

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

This is debate, Chair, and it's a Liberal attempt to silence me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Zuberi, but thank you.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'm just not sure what she's talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

We will restart the time.

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

Chair, these Liberals really want to silence me because of their chain migration bill.

The minister can't answer where these people are going to live, she can't answer where they're going to get a job and she can't answer how they're going to get a family doctor.

I'm going to ask again why you didn't appeal the court ruling. I think it's because the Liberals like out-of-control immigration levels.

The other thing is that there are no language requirements in this bill. Do you not respect the right of Canadians to know at least one of Canada's official languages?

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

As I said, this bill has limits on automatic citizenship by descent. Without passing any legislation, there will be no limits, and I don't believe that is what the members are looking for.

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

There's no limit under this chain migration bill. You are correct. There are no language requirements and no security requirements—nothing.

The minister can't tell us, but I'm going to ask one more time. Where are people going to live under this chain migration bill? Who is going to be their family doctor? Where are they going to work in a youth job crisis?

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

I want to remind members that a lot of the people who will be caught under this legislation will be minors—

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

We have a youth job crisis.

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

There will also be individuals who are already in Canada and are already contributing to our system.

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

Where are they going to live? There are 115,000 people at least.

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

The ones who are in Canada already would have places where they are living.

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

What about the rest of them? Where are they going to live?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. That is your six minutes.

We'll now go to Mr. Fragiskatos for six minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.

We just heard the phrase “chain migration” repeated here at the committee, despite the fact that this is a clear effort on the part of the government to reform the Citizenship Act. There's a distinction that needs to be made there, I'm afraid.

Minister, in your comments, which you weren't able to get entirely on the record, I think one important rebuttal to this particular argument about chain migration does relate to numbers. You gave a number of 4,000-plus in terms of what the government has seen up to this point from those who would be affected by this legislation.

Can you repeat that fact for us?

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

Certainly. This is what we know about volumes, for the members of the committee and everyone who is listening.

As we know, the bill was struck down in December 2023. Under the interim measures in effect between January 2024 and the end of July 2025, IRCC received just over 4,200 applications from individuals impacted by the first-generation limit who were eligible to be offered consideration for a discretionary grant of citizenship. That includes those born after 2009, when the first-generation limit came into effect—clearly those are children and infants—as well as the descendants of lost Canadians—in other words, the children of lost Canadians who were remedied in 2009 and in 2015, and another section of lost Canadians.

There has been no surge of applications under the interim measures. Similarly, when the legislative changes were implemented back in 2009, under a Conservative government, and in 2015—10 years ago—under a Liberal government, which restored citizenship to most lost Canadians, we didn't see a surge of applications. Overall, since 2009, there have been a little over 20,000 individuals who came forward to seek proof of citizenship. At the highest point, the department received fewer than 2,400 applications per year. In fact, what we know based on experience with previous legislation that addressed lost Canadians as well as from those impacted by the first-generation limit who have come forward since January 2024, is that we expect of tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, to be impacted by Bill C-3. Many people may not even apply; they may not even come forward.

IRCC is prepared to process those applications with proof of citizenship. This is the right thing to do. It's something that needs to be remedied. It was found to be unconstitutional. That's why we're here today, to remedy that.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to turn to the officials now, if I could.

Again, this question relates to rebutting this point about chain migration and Bill C-3 and is for whoever wishes to take it.

Can you talk to us about the fact that the bill embraces a cumulative approach of 1,095 days as opposed to a consecutive approach? Touch on that. The 1,095 days is, as we know, three years. How does that compare to permanent residency requirements? Is that consecutive or cumulative days with respect to permanent residency?

I'm interested in seeing if Bill C-3 aligns with requirements for permanent residency in Canadian law.

[Catherine Scott, Assistant Deputy Minister, Settlement and Citizens, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you.

The substantial connection test in the legislation is demonstrated by presence in Canada for 1,095 cumulative days, as you pointed out. This is similar to the physical presence requirement that any applicants for citizenship by naturalization have to demonstrate. Bill C-3 uses cumulative presence rather than consecutive, because it recognizes that people demonstrate their connection to Canada in different ways and reflects the ways that Canadian families live today. It would allow a family to demonstrate their connection to Canada, for example, if an individual did their university studies in Canada or came over for many summers to spend time with their grandparents. It gives that flexibility as well to families working for a multinational corporation who are transferred multiple times. It gives that flexibility to meet that 1,095-day requirement and demonstrate that connection to Canada.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I think I have just about a minute left, Chair.

I think it's important to put the matter into context as well. I wanted to ask those substantive questions on specifics of the bill and deal with this argument, again, of chain migration, which I think you've done.

The ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is very clear as it relates to the charter. What were the specific charter concerns raised by the court?

That's for the officials.

[Erika Schneidereit, Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

I'll just say quickly that the court's findings were based on section 6 of the charter, which is the mobility rights under the charter, as well as section 15, which is the equality rights.

I don't think I have time to go into more than that.

Thank you.