Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[Uyen Hoang]

Thank you for the question.

You're right in the sense that we chose the same number of days—1,095 days—but the main difference is to receive a grant of citizenship, you would have to meet 1,095 days within the last five years before your application, versus Bill C-3, which proposes that it would be any time before the birth of the child. The reason we took this approach is that we are talking about citizens by descent. They are born to Canadian parents abroad, versus the grant pathway, where we are talking about foreign nationals who become permanent residents and who pursue citizenship to become a Canadian citizen here in Canada.

Given that there are two different pathways—one where they are born to Canadian citizens and one where foreign nationals become permanent residents—there is that additional flexibility to allow Canadians living abroad to pursue the opportunities and the lifestyles that they wish while knowing they can still maintain a connection to Canada.

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

Excuse me, Madam Chair. I have one last question.

If you're saying that these are two completely different things, why did you use the 1,095 days as an example from the Citizenship Act? If these are two completely different things, why did you choose the same number of days?

[Uyen Hoang]

We chose the 1,095 days to align with how we do it in the grant pathway, recognizing that it is a sufficient number of days in which to demonstrate a connection to Canada.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Hoang.

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

Does anyone else want to weigh in on this amendment?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Can I just ask again? I just want to ensure that the question is put forward on this amendment and the Citizenship Act. Is there anything in this amendment that would create either a misalignment or an inconsistency between what's called for here and the Citizenship Act in terms of requirements, so that you would have, potentially, an argument for different treatment?

[Uyen Hoang]

We would have to take that back and look into it further.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

It seems to me it would be a pretty big issue if we passed an amendment that could potentially create an inconsistency. I don't know if colleagues have views that they wish to.... We might have some lawyers in the room as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Mr. Fragiskatos, I think we've already heard that it's constitutional.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

That's not the point I'm putting forward, Madam Chair.

On your argument, yes, I understand what you're saying, but my specific question relates not so much to constitutionality as it does to ensuring there is consistency between the amendment and the Citizenship Act in terms of requirements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, did you want to weigh in?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yes, I just have a question, because I think Brad made a good point about examples being illustrative.

Just so I'm clear, if this amendment is passed, say I was born in Canada, lived in Canada my whole life and then I go off to study and I study for a period of, say, three years abroad. I meet someone and I have a kid abroad. I then wouldn't have been resident in Canada within a period of 1,095 days. Walk me through it. Examples like that might be illustrative in terms of people who are studying abroad and having children abroad, but who have been in Canada their whole life and would pass on the citizenship in that context.

[Stephanie Jay-Tosh, Acting Senior Director, Citizenship Legislative Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

The starting point would be that the parent would have been born abroad, and then they're the next generation that's proceeding to give birth or adopt abroad in this situation. The way we have understood the amendment is that it's as long as the individual has spent 1,095 days within any consecutive five-year period prior to the birth of the child.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you. Is there anything else?

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Just to respond to what Mr. Fragiskatos said—and it echoes what Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe also said—consistency is important. I think that's exactly why we're making this amendment. The Citizenship Act already has 1,095 days within five years, and Bill C-3 has only the 1,095 days. I think we can make a pretty strong argument that it would be consistent, as Mr. Fragiskatos asked for, to put the “within five years” component of it in. Then it's aligned with other segments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Does anyone else want to enter this debate? Seeing no one, shall CPC-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

Next, we are going to LIB-2.

I think we have Mr. Erskine-Smith who is going to speak to the amendment.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I am. I'm substituting for Ms. Zahid while I'm doing this.

This takes us in a different direction.

For reference, folks, this is number 13626156 in the package. It's LIB-2. I move—there's going to be one small change that I make, and I'll explain when I get there—that Bill C-3, in clause 1, be amended by adding, after line 28 on page 4, the following:

(8.1) Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(3.1) Subsection (3) does not apply in respect of a person who, while a minor child, was adopted, before or after the day on which An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into force, by a citizen if the adoption is recognized by the province or territory in which the adoptive parent resides—

This is the change, by the way:

—and was in accordance with the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-Country Adoption that was concluded on May 29, 1993 and came into force on May 1, 1995.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

My copy says, “in which the adoptive parent resides on was in accordance”, but you're saying, “and was in accordance”.

Thank you.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The text said “or”, but the amendment I'm moving says “and”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Okay. That's perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Who would like to speak to this?

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I might as well kick it off.

I want to lay out the rationale in greater detail, but I want to say that I personally have two constituents who are affected by this and who have adopted abroad. They brought this to me years ago, and I made a personal commitment to them that when this issue arose, if there were an opportunity to correct this, I would do so.

I'm not a member of this committee. I'm visiting for this specific reason: to get this specific concern addressed. The concern is that their kids, whose only citizenship is Canadian, whose only real connection is to Canada, will be treated differently than my kids. I think there's an unfairness there, and I want to walk through that unfairness.

First of all, I'll read a letter from one of my constituents, who says, “Families who are formed through the process of adoption are required by law to complete all of the necessary regulatory milestones to become a family and secure citizenship for their children. These stringent and arduous requirements are enforced specifically for adopted families who adopt while living or working abroad, and for Canadian families who adopt internationally while living in Canada, the majority of adoptions. Fundamental to this process already is parental attestation that our children will be raised as Canadians.”

I want to get specific in greater detail, because these are provincial processes and territorial processes. Just to be clear, these are parents who, according to the rules as they are set down by provinces and territories, have to be living in Canada and commit to raising their children in Canada.

I want to be especially clear. This was provided to me by a constituent of mine who adopted a child from Zambia. They had to confirm their residency in Ontario. They had to complete a home study by an approved licensed adoption practitioner in the province of Ontario, which consists of—I'll just say a few things—multiple home visits to inspect the Canadian home where the child will live and detailed interviews with both parents as to how they will ensure their child is integrated into Canadian life and how they will support them. They must acquire multiple reference letters from other Canadians who can vouch for their ability to parent and complete child welfare checks in every province that they've lived in and every country that they lived in longer than six months. They have to be approved by the ministry for Ontario as adoptive parents, after which they may wait in the referral program. Upon returning to Canada, they were required to complete three years of home visits by a licensed Ontario social worker in their home.

Every province and territory gives effect to what's known as the Hague convention on intercountry adoption. There are many ideas there, but one of the ideas is that kids adopted internationally have the same rights as kids adopted domestically. Let me read specifically from the Hague convention. Article 26 of the Hague convention on intercountry adoption states:

In the case of an adoption having the effect of terminating a pre-existing legal parent-child relationship, the child shall enjoy in the receiving State, and in any other Contracting State where the adoption is recognised, rights equivalent to those resulting from adoptions having this effect in each such State.

I'll go on. This is not new. This was studied by this committee in 2009. The committee said:

The Committee is of the opinion that adopted children should not be treated differently from children born in Canada....

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada grant children adopted abroad by Canadian parents ordinarily residing in Canada the same legal status as children born in Canada.

I note that the same committee also took issue, by the way, and said.... On the “substantial connection” test that we're debating right now, the committee recommended a version of that alongside this specific change that I'm advocating for.

This was recently studied briefly, I should note, by the Senate. Senator Arnot, who, by the way, was a judge, a Crown prosecutor, a lawyer and the chief of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, has his proposed amendment, which in substance is the same as I'm proposing here: Children who receive citizenship after their adoption is complete should be exempt from the substantial connection test.

It's not only in Canada that legislators have recommended this, but also in the U.K. I mentioned that the Hague convention obligates us. We would be offside on the Hague convention should we not adopt this amendment like the U.K. and like-minded countries did. I'll zero in on the U.K.

The U.K.'s rule is that if the adoption is “made in accordance” with the convention, at least one parent is British and the adopting parent is resident in the U.K., “the child will automatically...become a British citizen 'other than by descent', which is the same as if they had been born in the UK to a British citizen parent.”

Again, if this amendment were adopted, that would be the rule here in Canada.

Civil society wrote to then minister Marc Miller in support of Senator Arnot's proposal. These are adoption experts at Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada, Adoption Council of Ontario, Adoption Options Alberta, Adoption Options Manitoba, New Brunswick Adoption Foundation, and more.

I want to be clear about the problem that we're seeking to solve through a substantial connection test. I actually take the point of Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment, which is to make sure there is some stringency to this. You don't want a situation where you have someone who was born abroad, lived abroad their entire life, has no connection to Canada and perpetually passes on Canadian heritage. I get that. Even on the more stringent proposal that Alexis supported and that Michelle put forward, I get it. Again, you're trying to establish an real and substantial connection.

Brad, you said that we don't just want visitors. Here's a situation where it is impossible to adopt via a province.... Again, the amendment specifically speaks to the fact that “the adoption is recognized by the province or territory in which the adoptive parent resides and was in accordance with” the Hague convention. It is impossible for there to not be a real and substantial connection when someone is adopting through a provincial or territorial agency because they are already obligated to reside here and to commit to raising their child here. The amendment would ensure that my kids are treated the same as theirs and that their kids are not discriminated against and treated as other than my own.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith, for this amendment.

Personally, I think it is important that we make sure that adopted kids are treated, as you put it, the same as your kids. I think, on this side, we would have the same perspective.

After years of working on this committee and watching changes go through the Citizenship Act, it's always about what the flaws are, where the holes are and whether we created new problems. There is a lot of human trafficking going on right now. A person can travel to the continent of Africa, can potentially find somebody and may not even know that this little child has been trafficked. That's obviously something we don't want to be encouraging and supporting. Should we be concerned about that? Is there anything in here that would help to prevent that from happening, and how might we be able to deal with that?

I believe we should be, as you say, changing things to make adoption more equal to birth. In that case, I agree, but I'm concerned about the potential downside of this. Most importantly, I'm concerned about the ways that unscrupulous people who are always out to make a buck will find a way to abuse the system. We've seen that in so many cases here with the way the Liberal government has set up the immigration system, whether it be students, temporary foreign workers or others. There are always people who are going to be able to exploit the system you set up, so how are you going to protect against that?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I don't want to discount a concern. Maybe you've heard testimony in this committee about human trafficking via adoption. That has not been flagged for me by the adoption community itself.

Having said that, I don't want to discount the concern without knowing the evidence. I will simply say that I respect provincial and territorial authority to manage the adoption process. We are not litigating the provinces' stringent rules. Provinces can put in place stringent rules to ensure they are taking action. I listed some in Ontario. In Quebec, I'm sure they have stringent rules as well, where adoption agencies are subject to provincial regulations.

I set down just one example, but I could have pointed to others where there are multiple visits, multiple checks and multiple investigations as to attestations from others in the community. All of that is within provincial authority.

All I'm saying is that kids should not bear the brunt of any of these concerns. There are thousands of kids in Canada today who were internationally adopted. I don't want to overstate the issue. The last time I checked—the department would have better numbers—in the last year, I saw a number that was under 700. Less than half of them are by direct grant.

I'm not suggesting that this is a huge issue, but any inequality between a kid internationally adopted and a kid born and adopted in Canada is unconscionable. We should address it. Where there are human trafficking concerns, where there is evidence of that, we should be working in tandem with our provincial and territorial agencies that have the jurisdictional authority to address those challenges.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Ms. Rempel Garner.