Evidence of meeting #5 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-3.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Lena Metlege Diab  Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Scott  Assistant Deputy Minister, Settlement and Citizens, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Schneidereit  Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Hoang  Director General, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Bonner  Senior Fellow, Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, As an Individual
Chapman  M.S.C., Lost Canadians
Jacques  Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Perrault  Director, Economic Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer

The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz

Welcome to meeting number five of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, September 22, the committee is commencing its study of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2025.

We have the Honourable Lena Diab, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and senior officials with us for the first hour to answer questions.

We have three witnesses on the second panel, one from the Bloc Québécois, one from the Conservatives and one from the Liberals, during our last hour.

The minister is very popular. You have all indicated that you have questions for her, and because we have only one hour, I will be very strict with time. I have brought aids with me today. I have two cards. Yellow means wrap up in 15 seconds; red means your time is up and your microphone will be turned off.

As always, kindly wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I will remind everyone to kindly not speak over each other, as it will be hard for our translators to translate and makes their job very difficult. Thank you, Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe, for always reminding us of this.

Of course, please ensure that all your comments are addressed through the chair.

Members, I know you know this, but it's always good to reiterate: Please raise your hand if you wish to speak. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

Thank you in advance for your co-operation.

Now I would like to welcome our witnesses for the first panel of today's meeting.

We have the Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

We also have senior officials with us, including Catherine Scott, assistant deputy minister, settlement and citizens; Uyen Hoang, director general, citizenship branch; and Erika Schneidereit, counsel, legal services.

Welcome, senior officials.

Welcome, Minister Diab. I now invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, after which we will proceed with a round of questions.

3:30 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Lena Metlege Diab LiberalMinister of Immigration

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.

The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz

Thank you, Minister Diab, for your remarks.

We will now begin with the first round of questions. We'll start with Ms. Rempel Garner for six minutes.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, we have a chain migration bill in front of us today at a time when your department has been issuing record numbers of all sorts of temporary foreign visas. We have a housing, jobs and health care crisis.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that at least 115,000 people would become Canadian citizens under this chain migration bill.

Where are they going to live?

Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS

Thank you very much for the question.

This is what we know on volumes. From January 2024 to July 2025, when the interim measures were implemented by the department, the department received over 4,200 applications from those individuals—

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Thank you.

There are a lot of people you are allowing in with this chain migration bill—

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON

Chair, I have a point of order.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

No, this is my time.

Where are they going to live?

The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz

There's a point of order.

I will stop the clock, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON

It is a point of order, chair, because we didn't hear the full answer. The member had the chance to complete her question. We need to hear the answer from the minister in order to have—

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

On that point of order, it is my time.

The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz

It is your time, Ms. Rempel Garner, but please allow the witness to complete her sentences.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I gave her equal time, which you should have been looking at.

Thank you, Chair.

The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz

We don't have an agreement on equal time, so please allow the witness—

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Are you silencing me?

The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz

I am not. I'm going to ask you to continue, but kindly let her answer the questions.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I would advise not trying to silence me.

Where are they going to live, Minister? Where are all the people you're letting in on this chain migration bill going to live?

The CMHC says that housing starts are down by 16%, so where are you putting 115,000 auto-Liberal Canadians?

Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to remind the members that this bill was struck down in December 2023. We are here to remedy a situation, and if we do not act, we are in jeopardy—

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Thank you.

On that point, why didn't you appeal the court ruling? You just let it go.

Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS

Again, Madam Chair, we're here today to talk about this bill that is in front of us. It is important legislation that strikes a balance to protect Canadian values and Canadian families.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

You just said the bill is here because of a court ruling. The court didn't write this legislation. I'll ask you this again. Where are these people you are putting in this bill—which the courts didn't write and whose ruling you didn't appeal—going to live?

Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS

The IRCC saw no surge in the interim measures, nor did it see any surge happening in 2009 and 2015 when similar legislation was in place. I remind the member that a lot of these individuals are infants, and there are a lot of individuals who are already in Canada and paying taxes as well.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Just like the IRCC didn't see the surge of 1.5 million people when we didn't have places for them to live.

Who's going to be their family doctor in this chain migration bill? How and where are these people going to get family doctors?

Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS

I remind members again that I need to pass it to protect the value of citizenship in this country. Without it, there will be no limit on citizenship by descent for many people born to Canadian citizens abroad.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

To be clear, that's because your government didn't appeal the court ruling. It didn't use any other tools in its tool kit. It just said, “Yay, chain migration. Here is a chain migration bill.”

I'll give you one more shot. How long are Canadian families going to have to wait in ER rooms because of this chain migration bill?