Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

That's true. It does say that.

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

That was a substantive translation error.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Shall we officially correct that en français to one thousand...?

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

I did not make that translation, just for the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

I've been assured by our legislative clerk that it is correct in the bill. That is, it's “1,095” en français in the bill.

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

Just to be clear, we want 1,095 days in any five years prior to the person's birth.

The reason we're calling for this is that in the Citizenship Act, citizenship by naturalization requires this exact provision. While there has been some assertion that citizenship through unlimited descent, as provided for through Bill C-3, is somehow not immigration. To maintain the intrinsic value of Canadian citizenship, acquiring citizenship should require significant ties to the country. The naturalization process, through the existing process set out in the Citizenship Act, defines that by a “three out of five” year period.

All we're seeking to do here is harmonize Bill C-3 with what is already in the Citizenship Act for citizenship by naturalization, so that we are not creating two classes of citizenship acquisition. That seems inherently un-Canadian to me, and I also foresee legal challenges if there is no harmonization on this component.

Also, again, I want to stress to colleagues that we should be, as a committee, trying to ensure that government legislation protects the intrinsic value of Canadian citizenship. We feel that this amendment would strengthen that. It would also allow for persons to not be stuck in the country for an extended period of time. There's flexibility if somebody has to go to a funeral or something like that, or if an emergency comes up. There has to be a demonstrated, concerted effort to stay in the country over a period of time in order to pass down citizenship.

I want to remind colleagues that while the courts did make a decision on this, the government chose not to appeal that ruling and then drafted this legislation. The government chose to put this legislation in front of us, so this is an amendment that will harmonize the provisions for citizenship acquisition through Bill C-3 with what is currently in the Citizenship Act for acquiring citizenship through naturalization. We think this is only fair for other classes of immigrants who seek to acquire Canadian citizenship through naturalization.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Does anyone else want to speak to this amendment?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In fact, I'd like to ask the officials for their view on the consequences and the implications of this, including the unintended ones. That's a general question to whoever wishes to take it.

[Uyen Hoang, Director General, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you for the question.

Bill C-3, as you know, is written in a way that would allow Canadian parents who give birth abroad to be able to pass on citizenship to their children beyond the first generation as long as they can meet the substantial connection requirement of 1,095 days cumulative anytime before the birth of the child.

It is viewed that with this flexibility, there is recognition that Canadians living abroad can maintain a strong connection to Canadian and have the flexibility to make decisions accordingly for their families and that by restricting the time frame, you may create a new cohort of lost Canadians. You may also exclude Canadians who have spent more time than three years cumulatively in Canada, but over a longer period of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Could you go over those two points again, starting with “a new cohort of lost Canadians”?

Then I have a question on what you just summed up there in terms of the time frame and what sounds like an unintended consequence.

Begin with this new cohort concern.

[Uyen Hoang]

Thank you for the question.

When we say the potential unintended consequences could lead to the creation of new lost Canadians, it's because there are cases whereby families living abroad who have children outside of Canada and come back to Canada over the years—visiting grandparents and having connections with their families here in Canada—may not spend 1,095 days within a consecutive five years.

By putting that tight limitation on them, you may then exclude them from being able to pass on citizenship through descent to their children. This is what we mean when we say you could create a new cohort of lost Canadians.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Legal challenges could potentially arise. Is there a view on how that might be interpreted by the courts?

If you create a new cohort of lost Canadians, I would think this would raise serious legal implications.

[Alain Laurencelle, Team Manager and Senior Counsel, Legal Services Unit, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

It's always open to people to bring a challenge on charter grounds, but the position of the Department of Justice on the bill as it stands now with the requirement is that it is in line with the charter.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you.

On the time frame issue, your second real concern sounded like a substantive concern. Could you go over that one more time?

[Uyen Hoang]

The difference between what is being proposed and what is in the bill is that what's in the bill is any time before the birth of the child. It's a child who is born beyond the first generation, as long as the parent can meet the “substantial connection” any time before the birth of the child, versus the qualifying time frame the proposed amendment is suggesting. It's suggesting that the person would have to meet 1,095 days. It could be cumulative—it's not consecutive—based on the proposed amendment, but it has to be within a consecutive five-year period. That can restrict somebody who may actually spend more time in Canada, but not within a five-year period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Redekopp, go ahead.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to point out that listening to the official's description of this.... What you said in your example, I believe, to paraphrase you, is that a family could come to Canada multiple times but not enough to qualify for 1,095 days in a five-year period. It sounds like you're suggesting, or Mr. Fragiskatos is suggesting, that could be a new cohort of lost Canadians. To me, what you described—somebody who comes to Canada multiple times but not for 1,095 days—sounds like a perfect description of a visitor to Canada. I just wanted to point that out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Is there any more debate on this amendment?

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

If you look at the amendment, one could argue there's reduced flexibility if you compare the amendment to Bill C-3. What would the implications of that reduced flexibility be with regard to the Citizenship Act and the need for consistency that the Ontario Court of Justice has talked about?

[Uyen Hoang]

I won't speak to the bureaucrat's decision per se, but from a policy perspective, it was decided that 1,095 days was aligned with the Citizenship Act in terms of how someone could demonstrate a connection to Canada. Recognizing the way Canadian families live today, it was designed in such a way as to give them that flexibility to live their lives abroad and continue to maintain a connection to Canada.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

In your view, does this amendment create a new misalignment, perhaps?

That is for whoever wishes to take it.

[Uyen Hoang]

I think this amendment is not aligned with the bill, but that's as far as I could say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

I now go to Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask a quick question.

I gather from the evidence heard by the committee that the 1,095‑day period set out as a criterion in Bill C‑3 was already included in the Citizenship Act as a model for permanent residents to obtain Canadian citizenship.

Under the Citizenship Act, the 1,095 days must have been accumulated over a five‑year period. According to the proposed amendment, this period remains the same, but the entire model established by the officials also remains the same. I don't see how this could be considered unconstitutional. The 1,095‑day period is based on the model already found in the Citizenship Act. Logically, the period set out in the Citizenship Act would apply to Bill C‑3, the model would remain the same and everyone would be happy.

Is that right?