Debates of Oct. 27th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to circle back to my Conservative colleague's question, which has still not been answered. It was a very good question.

My colleague asked why the government did not include official languages in the bill's criteria. The purpose of this bill is to define what constitutes a sufficient connection to Canada. This seems like a perfectly normal condition, given that we operate in both English and French.

How is it that this much-talked-about connection with Canada does not require knowledge of French or English, which is how that connection would be formed?

Is the minister comfortable with the idea of granting citizenship to people who speak neither French nor English but who claim to have strong ties to the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3's approach enables individuals to show their commitment to Canada and their plans to participate in and contribute to Canadian society. Most of the applications concern children born after 2015, who are 16 years of age or under. If those children want to become Canadians, then I hope that their parents will submit the appropriate application on their behalf, and that they will come to Canada and learn both of the country's official languages.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, near the end of the minister's speech, she talked a lot about families she is connected to and has spoken to personally. Maybe she could share some of those stories of the families that would benefit from this change in legislation with the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is extremely important, but it affects a minority of people in the population. For those we are trying to rectify this for, it is of significant importance. Even if we can rectify the situation for a few thousand people, that is why we are here. This is for people who have a tie to Canada, have lost their right to citizenship and whose situations were not remedied by the 2009 and 2015 legislation. Those are the ones who are crying, because they have a deep commitment to Canada. They want to become Canadians, but they also want the right to pass citizenship on to their children.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the common-sense amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc so carefully crafted at committee to improve Bill C-3 are being undone by my postnationalist colleagues across the aisle.

The Liberals do not believe in Canada because they do not believe in our borders. They believe in a two-tiered immigration system, where citizenship by naturalization within our borders has harder requirements than citizenship by descent outside of our borders does. They believe in distributing the privileges of Canadian citizenship abroad while offloading the costs and duties of citizenship to those who live coast to coast to coast. They believe that Canadians of convenience should be able to wear the team Canada jersey without ever putting in time on our ice. They are people who want to be in the team photo without being a team player.

Let me remind the House of how this entire situation first began.

The phrase “Canadians of convenience” emerged after 2006, when, during the Lebanon war, the Canadian government evacuated 15,000 Lebanese Canadians at the cost of $94 million to Canadian taxpayers. They were evacuated beginning in July 2006, and by September of the same year, 7,000 of those evacuees had returned to Lebanon. This was the central reason the Harper government took action to initiate the first-generation limit several years later.

Let us make this definition very clear: Canadians of convenience, as grounded in our 2006 example, are those who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society. They view Canada as an insurance policy when a crisis emerges, but never pay into our system. They are passport holders who merely parachute back into Canada when they need assistance. They wear team Canada’s jersey, but they have never played with us.

Conservatives are in full support of all measures needed to specifically address the lost Canadians situation. However, lost Canadians must understand that they have been used as a Trojan Horse by the postnationalist Liberals.

The first-order effect of the original Bill C-3 would directly help lost Canadians. The second-order effect of Bill C-3 in its original form would have indirectly created over 100,000 Canadians of convenience. This is why the Bloc and the Conservatives united to create common-sense amendments that would lessen the impacts of Bill C-3’s second-order effects.

Let us discuss the common-sense amendments that were crafted in committee. Might I add, these were crafted by recognized opposition parties through a committee, where committees are central to the parliamentary process. Our legitimate parliamentary work is being opposed by team orange, which has been stripped of official party status.

I will only entertain this tangent once, but I do question the legitimacy of an unofficial party challenging the parliamentary work of recognized parties in committees. What are the optics of this? Why bother having parliamentary committees if all voted resolutions are ignored? I digress, so I will get back to the amendments.

The goal of our amendments was simply to harmonize the requirements of citizenship by descent with those of citizenship by naturalization within Canada. Is it too much to ask for a harmonized system with universal standards? What we achieved in the amendments would strengthen the substantial connection test, while adding quality control reporting responsibilities for the presiding minister.

One, we amended the three-year presence in Canada to be achieved within a five-year timeline. This would allow some flexibility while ensuring some level of intensity. With any more flexibility, we must seriously ask if we are talking about a path to citizenship or mere tourism.

Two, we added requirements about language proficiencies, citizenship knowledge and security checks. It is not a high bar to demand proficiency in one of our official languages. It is not a high bar to demand a prospective Canadian citizen should understand the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship. We expect much more of someone getting their driver’s license. It is not a high bar to demand a security assessment, but it is a high bar for Canadians of convenience who would like to wear team Canada’s jersey without being a team player on our national rink.

Finally, the Bloc and the Conservatives added reporting requirements for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The first reporting requirement would be the number of citizenships granted by the enactment of Bill C-3. The second reporting requirement would be security screening exemptions. Essentially, the first stream of data would be to understand how Bill C-3 is performing, and the second would be to keep an eye on potential security threats. If we have the best interests of Canadians in mind, these reporting requirements are not just logical but absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, these reporting requirements are too high a bar if the goal is to obfuscate operational metrics while being soft on crime.

Taken together, our amendments make the substantial connection test of Bill C-3 functionally substantial in practice and not just in words. Of course, there is nothing more substantial than what citizenship by naturalization requires of those understanding its process. What these amendments achieve is the addition of a certain cost to the process of earning Canadian citizenship, a cost to reflect the value we hold in being Canadian.

I would like to wrap up my comments with a topic that has been the central but unspoken theme of Bill C-3, which is the value of Canadian citizenship. Every Canadian citizen is like a voting shareholder in a corporation. The shareholders have elected the Liberals to be the operating officers on the assumption they would be prioritizing the values of what it means to be Canadian shareholders. Instead, they have weaponized a promise to reinstate lost shareholders as a Trojan Horse to dilute every existing share by issuing new tranches of passive shareholders of convenience.

All the Bloc and the Conservatives are asking is that this new tranche of shares being issued under Bill C-3 meet the same standards as those governing employees who earned sweat equity by contributing to our corporation. When the Liberals, as the acting officers of our corporation, and the consultants on team orange, who are no longer legitimate members of the board, decide that Bill C-3 tranches of shares should be issued without the parity vesting and work we require of sweat equity earners, I have only one question: Are they fulfilling their fiduciary duty to our existing base of shareholders?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives fail to recognize that there is a difference between someone who says they want to be able to immigrate to Canada and someone who wants to get their citizenship reaffirmed. For example, a foreign bureaucrat, who has done years of service for Canadians but who has done that service in an embassy, wants to be able to see some form of their descendants being able to have citizenship. We want to apply the very same rules as when we are affirming the citizenship by having a substantial residency factor of 1,095 days. This is the connection, and I think it is reasonable, given that, in order to become a Canadian citizen, if they are a permanent resident, it is 1,095—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to give the member time to respond.

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the example is of foreign services. After x number of years, they have to return to Canada for a number of years before they get reassigned. That should address your issue. Any other corporation in the private sector has similar types of arrangements that can be addressed appropriately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Please address all comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague mentioned in his speech that the amendments made as a result of serious work in committee by my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, are falling apart because of collusion between the Liberals and the NDP. One of the amendments in question had to do with the tabling of an annual report in Parliament on the bill's impact.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the government, with the NDP's support, is refusing to take accountability for the impact of this bill?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for any government party, there is an obligation to report to the House and Canadians on what has been done. The simple ask of the committee, from the Bloc and the Conservatives, was merely for the ministry and the minister to report on the facts so that Canadians and Parliament can understand what has taken place and whether the treatment of Canadians overall is fair.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when our immigration system has been stretched and faith in its fairness is fading, Bill C-3 tells the world that one could be Canadian without ever truly living here. Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable things in the world. It is something that generations have worked hard to earn and to honour, but Bill C-3 would give automatic citizenship to children born abroad, even when their parents have spent little time living in Canada.

We used to have an immigration system that was the envy of the world. It was rooted in fairness, contribution and community, but the bill risks turning citizenship into a paper privilege, rather than a lived commitment.

Before granting citizenship, should we not expect at least some genuine connection and some proof of interest in, effort for or belonging to the country we call home?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the value of Canadian citizenship used to be one of pride all over the world. As I said, if we want to wear the jersey, we have to be part of the team. If we continue this process of passing it on from generation to generation, we are going to lose that Canadian value and the connection to Canada.

What would the loyalty to Canada be other than being a Canadian passport holder for convenience?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are addressing a very important issue with our study of Bill C-3. Canadian citizenship is more than just an administrative status. It is a powerful symbol of belonging to a country. It confers certain fundamental rights, such as the right to vote and the right to travel with a Canadian passport, and it also embodies a civic responsibility, a shared identity and a deep connection to our country. To be a citizen of Canada is to be part of a collective project rooted in democracy, equality, diversity and freedom.

There are three pathways to citizenship under the Citizenship Act: by being born in Canada, through naturalization by immigrating to Canada and acquiring citizenship, or by descent if an individual is born abroad to a Canadian parent. Today, our debate is focusing on this last pathway, which is citizenship by descent. I want to make that clear, because it is important in our discussions not to confuse citizenship by descent with citizenship by naturalization.

Naturalization results from the process of immigrating to Canada, while descent applies when a person is the child of a Canadian citizen and is therefore a right acquired by birth. The criteria and requirements are obviously different in both cases. I would like everyone to keep this distinction top of mind throughout the debate.

Since 2009, the fundamental right to citizenship by descent has been unfairly restricted. Thousands of people with a real, long-term connection to Canada have been deprived of that sense of belonging. An amendment made to the Citizenship Act under Stephen Harper's Conservative government introduced an arbitrary rule commonly known as the first-generation limit.

This provision means that only children born abroad to a Canadian parent who was born in Canada are automatically entitled to citizenship. In other words, if two successive generations are born outside Canada, even if the parents are active Canadian citizens, the child cannot become a citizen.

This provision severed the legal and symbolic tie between Canada and many children of Canadians living temporarily abroad. Canadian families were plunged into legal limbo or even exclusion when they discovered that their children were considered foreigners by their own country.

These issues are not theoretical. They are affecting children growing up in Canadian households abroad and families who wish to pass on to their children not just a passport, but also a Canadian identity, a cultural heritage, a sense of belonging to a community and a feeling of safety. Failing to recognize them sends a message of exclusion to those who feel like full-fledged Canadians. It is a dismissal of the contributions of our diaspora and of the reality that this is a country where familial and citizenship ties often transcend borders.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the first-generation limit is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates sections 6 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is, mobility rights and equality rights.

The Government of Canada did not appeal this decision, since it acknowledges that the act has had unacceptable consequences. The court granted us an extension to allow Bill C‑3 to run its parliamentary course. If this bill is not passed within the next few weeks, before the suspension of the declaration of invalidity ends, there will be no limits anymore on citizenship by descent for all the people born to Canadian citizens abroad. People will be able to pass citizenship on to their children in perpetuity without the need for a substantial connection to Canada.

Therefore, to comply with our constitutional obligations and preserve the integrity of our citizenship process, our government opted to propose a responsible and balanced legislative framework. I sincerely believe this was the right decision.

Bill C‑3 seeks to extend citizenship by descent beyond the first generation. It was designed with a clear objective: to restore the rights of Canadians deprived of their citizenship, while establishing a fairer framework for future generations. In so doing, it seeks to strike a balance between setting reasonable limits on automatic citizenship by descent and protecting the rights and privileges associated with Canadian citizenship.

Once passed, Bill C‑3 will automatically grant citizenship by descent to all individuals born abroad to a Canadian parent before the coming into force of the act. This means that descendants of Canadians who have been unfairly excluded will have their status restored. For children born after the act comes into force, a new framework will be introduced. Under this framework, citizenship can be transmitted beyond the first generation if the Canadian parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, defined as 1,095 cumulative days, or about three years, of physical presence in Canada. This requirement guarantees that children who receive citizenship have a genuine connection with the country, without arbitrarily excluding individuals based on their place of birth.

The introduction of the substantial connection requirement allows for a reasonable balance to be maintained. Citizenship by descent remains available, but it is anchored in a real and tangible connection with Canada. This requirement guarantees that future generations will not receive citizenship if they do not have genuine ties to the country. This reflects our desire to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship without needlessly restricting it.

This is a modern, balanced and responsible framework. In fact, it is more rigorous than if we simply abolished the first-generation limit. It protects the integrity of our citizenship while correcting blatant injustices. However, during the committee study, Conservative members got several amendments to Bill C-3 adopted that change the spirit and intent of the bill in a way that is unacceptable. For example, the Conservative amendments at committee changed the criterion in the bill for determining a parent's substantial connection to Canada. What changed is the restriction about the 1,095 days being over a period of five consecutive years. If we require parents to be present in Canada for a cumulative period of three years in the five years prior to their child's birth or adoption, we will be reducing the flexibility and options available to first- and subsequent-generation Canadians to pass on their citizenship.

In 2025, Canadian families, including those abroad, live very different lives. We support their freedom to pursue studies and other endeavours outside Canada. We do not feel that their choices should compromise their ability to pass on their Canadian citizenship. A connection to Canada can be demonstrated in many ways, and it can be maintained even while pursuing activities abroad. This change could result in more lost Canadians. It would be fundamentally unfair to deny a substantial connection with Canada to those who have spent more than three years in the country over long periods of time.

In fact, taken as a whole, these changes are inconsistent in many other respects. They require the minister to report annually on cases where the security assessment requirement has been lifted, without including a provision giving the minister the power to lift that requirement. They establish a substantial connection criterion in the law while giving the Governor in Council the power to make regulations to establish and modify that same criterion. In the interests of consistency, the substantial connection criterion should be defined in the law or in the regulations, but not in both, as my opposition colleagues would have it.

These amendments require Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, to report data that the government does not currently collect. That would place an additional burden on the government and taxpayers by requiring the creation of a new mechanism for Canadians to register the birth of their children abroad. Our approach is to govern effectively, decisively and with respect for Canadian taxpayers' money, not to introduce new red tape.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that Canadian citizenship gives us all a deep sense of belonging to this diverse, democratic, and inclusive country that we are proud to call our own. Our government will continue to protect the value of Canadian citizenship by ensuring that the process remains fair, transparent and based on sound principles. Bill C-3 strikes a necessary balance. It corrects a past injustice to Canadians who were stripped of their citizenship, while ensuring that the future of citizenship by descent is based on genuine ties to our country.

However, amendments proposed by Conservative colleagues have introduced unacceptable and unnecessary requirements that have never been applied to other citizens, making it difficult to meet the substantial connection requirement for individuals seeking to pass on their citizenship, and potentially creating new categories of lost Canadians. I think we should ensure that these amendments are not included in the final version of the bill that will be passed in the House.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that, behind the legal and administrative considerations we are discussing today, there are real people with personal stories, life experiences and sincere ties to Canada. We must remember that the decisions we make in this House can shape the destinies of individuals and entire families. Bill C‑3 is based on our government's reasoned, balanced approach that allows us to meet our constitutional obligations while maintaining the integrity of our citizenship.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. I know that he was not here during the previous Parliament when we had a great deal of debate on this bill. We had discussions with families that fall under this category. These are Canadian families that have served outside Canada.

What does my colleague think about the fact that this matter has come back to the House a couple of times and that Conservatives continue to put barriers to Canadians' access to this birthright?

Most importantly, what message does this send to families that have served outside Canada if we prevent them from obtaining citizenship for their children or grandchildren?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. In fact, Bill C-3 seeks to correct a historic injustice. People with genuine ties to Canada have been stripped of their Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 responds to those injustices.

The amendments our Conservative colleagues brought forward in committee would create new injustices and could create new generations of lost Canadians.

There are people with substantial connections to Canada who have worked abroad in various diplomatic missions or who have spent time abroad studying. The Conservatives want to deprive these people of the opportunity to obtain their citizenship while abroad.

I oppose the amendments proposed by our colleagues so as not to create a new injustice.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed at how tone-deaf the Liberals seem to be on the question of why they would be so supportive of not having criminal background checks on people coming into our country. No matter what stream of the immigration system people come here through, why would the Liberals support that?

My question to the member opposite is simple. Are people in his community satisfied? Would they be happy if people move into his area, the street he lives on and the surrounding area, and they do not know whether the people walking the streets have perpetrated crimes in the country they came from?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question puzzles me a little. A lot of information seems to be mixed up.

We are not discussing an immigration program here. We are discussing access to citizenship by descent, meaning by birthright, when a parent is a Canadian citizen or has maintained substantial ties to Canada. The two are not the same by any stretch. When we mix everything together, we end up misleading the public. It is important that we exercise great diligence in debates such as these.

The fact is that insinuating that citizenship by descent is an immigration stream falls short of the diligence that Canadians expect from us.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one objective of the amendments proposed is to grant citizenship by descent. However, the amendments state that the applicant should still be required to undergo security, language and knowledge testing, like any other naturalized citizen.

What have my colleague and the Liberals got against that?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, acquiring citizenship by descent and acquiring citizenship by naturalization are two completely different things.

People are given access to citizenship by naturalization at the end of an immigration process that includes various requirements, including knowledge of the official languages. Those requirements are justified by the fact that it is an immigration process. Once the requirements are met, citizenship is obtained through naturalization.

Acquiring citizenship by descent is not an immigration program. It is a right acquired at birth because one parent is a Canadian citizen or has maintained a substantial connection with the country. We are talking about two different things: citizenship by descent and citizenship by naturalization. Immigration requirements are a completely different subject.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand once again in this chamber to speak to the legislation before us.

I was disappointed to hear that our Liberal colleagues are working to overturn the common-sense amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc passed at committee in our deliberations on Bill C-3. It is not surprising that they are getting help from their traditional coalition partner, the NDP.

The Liberals have turned our immigration system into a nightmare. Now, they want to pass even more legislation that will not fix the issues they have created but will continue to add to this huge mess. They want to potentially add thousands of new citizens without the necessary housing, health care or jobs to support them.

At committee, Conservatives put forward multiple amendments to make this lousy bill into a slightly less lousy bill. I would like to thank our Bloc colleagues, who worked with us to get these amendments through the committee.

The Liberals will say that they have to pass this legislation because a lower court ruling said that the first-generation limit of citizenship by descent could go on indefinitely. What they failed to mention is this: Not only did they not appeal the court ruling, but they have the control as to how it is implemented through legislation they put forward.

The previous Conservative government put in place a rule that said that if somebody was going to pass down their citizenship to a child born abroad, they could only do it for one generation, and that somebody who obtains citizenship by descent had to have a substantial connection to Canada. Liberals want this substantial connection to be three years over the course of someone's life. The first amendment passed at committee was to harmonize the residence requirements for someone obtaining citizenship through naturalization with citizenship by descent.

It really does not make sense to my constituents and, I believe, to Canadians across this great country to bestow citizenship on someone whose parents lived here 30 years ago for a three-year period of time. Now, they have not lived a day in the country, know nothing about the country and potentially do not speak the language. They and their parents have not contributed to the economy of this country. They have not lived their lives here, ever, but would be automatically bestowed citizenship without the checks and balances that would be inherent in going through the normal immigration streams. Conservatives proposed that new citizens be required to live in Canada at least three consecutive years out of five years to have the provisions in the bill apply to their descendants.

Given that the Liberal government has shamefully dropped the ball repeatedly on conducting thorough criminal background checks for immigrants, providing proof of three years of residency within the five-year period over the entirety of somebody's life would cause huge administrative problems and carry a high risk of fraud. How is an immigration officer supposed to verify three years of physical presence using records that could be decades old or may not exist?

Just to clarify so there is no confusion, the Liberals want three years over the course of somebody's life. We are proposing three years over a five-year period. That is a reasonable change. It was supported by the Bloc and passed at committee, but we now read in today's news that the NDP has partnered with the Liberals to vote down this very important amendment. This will also make the massive process and backlogs that the Liberals have already created even worse, hurting genuine immigrants waiting for service.

The second amendment passed at committee was to add a language component. I would argue that it is hard enough for new citizens to establish themselves and get ahead in Canada as it is when they speak a little of either of Canada's official languages, English or French. How can they integrate and actively participate in Canadian society if they are unable to communicate or speak one of our official languages? Our citizenship laws need to help immigrants become integrated into Canada, not push them further away. Language is part of our national identity and it is a bond we all share. The ability to communicate with each other cannot be understated.

I am a bit confused by the Liberals voting against this amendment because, when the Liberal Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship was asked at the citizenship committee what she believed Canadian values are, she stumbled, mumbled and then admitted that official languages are part of our Canadian values. If the minister believes English and French are part of Canadian values, why is the Liberal government not actively looking to celebrate and promote them within the bill, which the very same minister brought forth to Parliament?

Worse still, the bill does not require mandatory criminal background checks, meaning citizenship could be given without a full security screening. The importance of background checks cannot be understated. Canadians expect that the people we welcome into the country are law-abiding citizens like them. They expect that the people who are walking in the streets and who are at the community centres and the malls, around the schools and everywhere else are law-abiding citizens. A background check would correct that issue. It would address that very issue.

Unfortunately, the Liberals are saying that no background checks are required for this stream of people who have never lived here before and who come here at the ages of 30, 35 or 40. They could have done whatever they wanted in their country, but they are owed their citizenship so we should just give it to them. It does not make sense. That is not what Canadians want.

Removing this requirement, which Canada has for other immigration pathways, is irresponsible, dangerous and certainly a lot less safe. We deserve better. Canadians deserve better. We are seeing high crime in our communities, where violent attacks are taking place in once-quiet and once-safe neighbourhoods. Not requiring background checks for new citizens puts Canadians at risk and will only worsen the crime seen in our communities.

The Liberal government is acting irresponsibly by putting forward legislation that will make critical issues worse. Its working to overturn the common-sense amendments the Conservatives and the Bloc passed at committee is reckless. This bill undermines Canadian citizenship and what it means to be a Canadian. It will result in new citizens with very little, if any, connection to Canada. We will not know if they have a criminal background or if they uphold any Canadian values. In many cases, we will be unable to prove with certainty that applicants were in the country for the required period of time. Records may simply not exist, let alone the difficulty in trying to ascertain something from 30, 40 or 50 years ago.

I support the section of this bill regarding international adoptions. I have spoken at some length in this chamber about how I adopted my own children internationally, so this issue touches close to home for me.

We are making Canadian citizenship worth less by setting the bar so low for those obtaining citizenship by descent. It is unfair to every person who worked hard, learned one of our languages and had to pass all the necessary tests required.

In closing, the Liberals' mess in immigration has worsened every crisis in our country: housing, health care and jobs. They brought in too many people too quickly, without any plan. Now communities are overwhelmed. Young people cannot find jobs and newcomers are struggling to find housing and food. Unemployment right now among youth in the greater Toronto area is hovering around 20%. Already, what the Liberals' plan for international students and temporary foreign workers has done is overwhelm the system. Our own youth in Canada cannot find the entry-level jobs that were readily available to most of us in the House when we were their age.

Now they want to bring in additional people without proper background checks and add to the system, putting an even bigger strain on housing, health care and jobs. There are people waiting in hospitals in the greater Toronto area and across the country five, six, seven or eight hours to get service. They cannot get that service.

The Liberals say that we should never mind doing any background checks. They have found another stream that they want to add to the system. They will make it so easy for those people to just walk into the country. This bill will continue to add to the chaos. It cheapens Canadian citizenship. It requires yet more bureaucracy. It worsens the trust in our immigration system, which was once the envy of the world.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that naturalization is the result of an immigration process in Canada, while citizenship by descent applies when a person is the child of a Canadian citizen and that parent has maintained a substantial connection with Canada.

Citizenship by descent is not an immigration program. It is completely false to claim otherwise. I would like to know why my colleague insists on repeating this false information in the House during our debates.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member probably has not read the bill in its entirety and probably does not understand the impact the bill would have.

There are going to be people in the member's community who came into the country and have not had any background checks and do not speak the language but simply say their mother and father were here 30 years ago; they graduated from university and were able to obtain citizenship back then. They then moved out of the country.

Consider a person who was born in another country and does not speak the language here. They have committed five or six crimes, but now that their country knows who they are and that they are a criminal, let them go to Canada where they would be welcomed into the country.

What the member opposite does not understand is the danger to the safety of our communities with this ridiculous legislation.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, beyond the semantic debates about naturalization and descent, with Bill C‑3, we could have someone who obtained citizenship in Canada after living in Canada for three out of 60 years and whose children could get citizenship without ever living in Canada, without knowing the language and without passing a security assessment.

What does my colleague think about all that? Why are the Liberals bent on having such weak conditions for citizenship by descent?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very well-thought-out question. Clearly the member has read the legislation and understands the impact it would have on our communities.

It really does not make sense in any way, shape or form to think that someone who lived here 50 or 60 years ago could bestow citizenship in perpetuity to generation after generation simply because they were here 50 or 60 years ago, without having contributed at all, not one minute of their life, to any of our Canadian provinces or territories.