Debates of Oct. 27th, 2025

Citizenship Act

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

Mr. Speaker, being Canadian is something people around the world dreamt of, and for good reason. Our immigration system used to be the best: fair, predictable and built on hard work. However, now it is a mess, with millions of temporary residents, hundreds of thousands of undocumented people, and endless backlogs. Instead of fixing the problem, Bill C-3 would make it worse, handing out citizenship without real connection and commitment.

It seems that the government does not understand that the system is in cardiac arrest. Is there any reason why the Liberals refuse to fix the problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, truly the only word that comes to mind is “incompetence”. We are now on the seventh Liberal immigration minister in the last 10 years. The bill is actually a copy of a previous bill. Members of the government just changed the title from Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament to Bill C-3 now. They introduced it in the month of May or June and then took the summer off. They all went home. They did not do any consultations across the country, with communities. They did not want to listen to people—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals think that a proper way of presenting the bill or defending it is by having the government whip sit in this space, thinking he is properly representing the people of Kingston and the Islands by heckling when someone is speaking in the House. This is not a serious government—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, if government members were serious, they would be putting Canadians' interests first and would not be putting their political nonsense of partisan politics first.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be in the House today speaking to the bill before us.

Fundamentally, we are talking about Bill C-3, which is a chain migration bill. It is a bill that would allow parents who were not born in Canada to give their children who were not born in Canada citizenship forever and ever. From my perspective, that is not a good thing.

How did we get to this place? Originally, way back when, there was Bill S-245, which was meant to fix one simple thing: the issue of lost Canadians. Then there was a court ruling that happened in Ontario that the federal government chose not to appeal. The Liberals chose to allow the courts to establish the policy of the Government of Canada. I think they were too weak or too scared, I am not sure which, to actually make the policy themselves, so they just said, “Great, we'll do what the court asks.”

In my opinion, the Liberals should have appealed the ruling and should have made their own decision in terms of what they wanted in the legislation. However, they then introduced Bill C-71 in the last session and forgot about it. They did not act on it in any way, and now here we are with essentially the same bill.

As I said, Bill C-3 is chain migration bill; it would allow people to pass on citizenship to their children indefinitely, whether they were born in Canada or not. The Liberals have actually put one condition on this. They keep talking about the semantics of the kind of method by which people are getting their citizenship, but at the end of the day, it does not really matter; there is a condition, which is the 1,095 days that a person would have to be present in Canada, which we have heard about all day long here.

We are essentially saying that it is fine, but we want to tweak it a bit and add a couple more conditions, which is all this is. Really what we are arguing about in the House today is how many and which conditions. It is not zero conditions; there are some conditions. The government has proposed some, and we are proposing a few more.

We are proposing that we strengthen the connection test a little so that, yes, a person could be here 1,095 days, which do not have to be consecutive but would have to be within a five-year period. We are also proposing making sure that people have either English or French proficiency, that they know the country they are coming to by taking a citizenship test and that they do not have a criminal record.

These are things that we believe are very reasonable and very fair and that should be done. Of course at committee we were able to put forward these common-sense proposals. We received majority support with the help of the Bloc at committee to do this, but now the government, in its incessant desire to break everything, wants to change that again, so here we are now.

Members might ask what the risk is. We are talking about children and other people who probably have a connection, which is quite likely true in many cases. There are people who are very legitimate who are young, under the age of 15 or 16 years old and potentially under the age of five or 10 years. Certainly those people, generally speaking, would be legitimate claimants to citizenship, but we have a very weak system.

The government has broken our immigration system so badly. It has messed up when it comes to asylum and when it comes to losing control of the number of students coming into our country. Everybody knows that; the faults are well known and well documented. However, now we have a government that has completely broken our system, saying, “Trust us. We've got this. We know exactly what we are doing.” Well, pardon me if I do not trust the government and if I do not think it has got this, because I do not think it does.

We know that when there is a weak system, there are bad actors in the world who try to take advantage of things, which is exactly what would happen through the proposed system. That is why we proposed some amendments, and I will quickly go through them.

First is the time period. The government's first condition that it proposed was that parents would have to spend 1,095 days in Canada before the birth of a child. We think that is fine, except that we want to see a bit of a stronger connection test, because the days could be over quite a span of years. What we are proposing is that the 1,095 non-consecutive days happen within a five-year window. That is what we are proposing, and we think it is very reasonable.

Second, we believe that people who obtain citizenship through this method should be able to speak either French or English. It is a fairly simple requirement; it is not complicated. We require this of all other people who obtain citizenship in our country, so we feel that is a very reasonable request and quite necessary for having a good, solid life in Canada.

The third condition we think should be in the bill is a citizenship test. We need to make sure that the people who are coming to our country actually know about our country, because by definition, these are people who have potentially not spent any time in Canada. We need to know that they understand what it means to be in Canada and what their rights and responsibilities are, just like other people who come to our country.

Finally, the other condition we think is very reasonable and prudent is a security check. We want to make sure that people who are criminals in other countries do not automatically get citizenship in Canada. This seem like common sense. I do not understand why it is so complicated for the government to understand.

There could be person who has been convicted of crimes in other country and then realizes that their parents lived in Canada for 1,095 days before they were born, when their parents were in university or something like that, and who thinks they have a solution: Even though they are wanted for crimes in their own country, they will just go to Canada because their parents could pass on their citizenship. That is what we are trying to avoid, and a simple security check would prevent that from happening.

One other thing that we asked to be included, which I think is very reasonable, is a reporting mechanism so Parliament and therefore Canadians would know how many people were granted citizenship through this method.

I think these are very reasonable things to ask.

There is risk when people can manipulate and abuse a weak system to their advantage. The amendments that would essentially add a few more conditions to the one the Liberals already proposed would mitigate those risks, making the system a little less weak and potentially a little less risky.

One thing I also want to mention is that there would be many young people who would be affected by the legislation, those under the age of 16 years, as I said before. They should be able to fly through the requirements very easily: the time period, languages, the test of Canada and the security screening, which they may be exempt from. Right now we require that only of people who are between the ages of 18 and 54. There would actually be no burden on young people.

That gets back to my original point: We are not after the people who are coming here legitimately. We want to make sure that those people do get the citizenship they are owed. However, we want to make sure that people who do not deserve citizenship, those who are taking advantage of the system, would be subject to some checks, just to make sure we can control and know who is coming into our country.

I know that the NDP is very angry at voters for taking away its party status in the House. That has caused a lot of angst, I am sure, in its ranks and in its members. The member for Vancouver East was very much opposed to the changes made at committee without her being able to be there. I know that she spoke on Friday, and there are a couple of things that I want to make sure she understands.

The first is about consecutive days. The member mentioned that we are proposing that the condition needs to be consecutive days. It does not. It would be 1,095 days within a five-year period. We realize that people do need to have the opportunity to visit their home country for weddings, funerals or different events that happen, and that seems very reasonable. It is not consecutive days; it is just that within a five-year period, we feel there should be a substantial connection to Canada.

The other thing I want to mention briefly is the confusion about who is a visitor to our country. It is pretty clear. As a kid, I grew up in a lovely town on the eastern side of Saskatchewan called Yorkton. My grandparents lived on the exact opposite side of the province in a small town called Herbert, another lovely town in Saskatchewan. As a youth, I spent a lot of time in Herbert, Saskatchewan, but I always considered myself a visitor to Herbert; I never thought I was actually from Herbert or had any kind of substantial connection to Herbert. I grew up in Yorkton, and that was where I spent most of my time.

That is the principle we need to follow. People may have visited Canada a number of times, and that is fine. We welcome visitors. We love it when they spend their money in our country; it is amazing, but we also need to make sure that this does not imply in any way that it makes them entitled to become a citizen of this country. We have to be very clear on what "visitor" means and what it is.

We also have to be careful of the government we have and the now seventh immigration minister we have in the House. We have had seven immigration ministers in 10 years, who have not done their due diligence on bills like the one that is before us. The current minister just took the bill from the last Parliament, which was the bill from the previous one. They just bring the bills along without actually putting some thought and logic into what is going on. That is very dangerous, and we have be very careful of it.

What we are seeing right now is that the old NDP-Liberal coalition is back on. There is a budget coming up next week, and I think what is going on here is that in return for its support of the budget, the NDP has demanded that the Liberals support it on the amendments they want to this bill. That is where we are right now; the NDP-Liberal coalition lives on.

Citizenship has value. We need to make sure that we reinforce that and that we defend that.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that come to my mind. First and foremost, the Conservatives seem to not want to recognize that there is a difference in what this legislation would do for someone who immigrates to Canada. When a person immigrates to Canada, the individual becomes a permanent resident and then certain things have to be adhered to before they can become a citizen. For example, they have to be here 1,095 days within a five-year period. This legislation would acknowledge individuals who could or should be entitled to Canadian citizenship.

I am wondering if the member opposite would recognize that there is a difference.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Winnipeg North is a master of words and likes to speak in all kinds of different ways, but the reality of this is really quite simple. We have a person who is not a Canadian and is obtaining Canadian citizenship one way or another. The member spoke about this method versus that method or another method. It does not really matter. The average Canadian does not understand that anyway, and I do not blame them, because it is a very complicated system.

The reality is that you would have a person without citizenship who gets citizenship. The reality is that the government would impose a condition on that person. We are proposing adding a couple more conditions. That is all. It is a very simple thing, yet the government refuses to consider conditions of criminality, language and knowledge of the country.

That is what we proposed and that is what went through at committee. We would like to see that in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean, who represents the Bloc Québécois, asked the minister about this issue. He asked how many more people would be granted citizenship as a result of this legislation. The minister was utterly unable to answer or provide a figure.

My question for my Conservative colleague is this: How can this government implement policies whose impact it knows absolutely nothing about?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who is a very good and diligent member of the committee. He does very good work and has been very helpful to the committee as a whole.

He asked an excellent question. We and the member for Lac-Saint-Jean asked it of the government as well. We asked how many people this would impact, and the government is incapable of knowing the answer. That is a very scary thing, because if a government does not know the impact of a policy it is making, it is taking chances with something as sensitive and dear to Canadians as citizenship.

We have a government that has no clue what impact this legislation would have and is unable to answer the most basic question of how many people would be impacted, yet it is moving ahead with this legislation. It is pushing it forward, throwing its hands in the air and saying it hopes it is going to be a good piece of legislation. That is a very bad choice.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was refreshing to hear a speech in this House that was brought down to everyone's understanding and simplified. We understand that very simple amendments were made at committee. We have the committee process for a reason.

I am wondering if the member would give his opinion on why the Liberal government is against simple amendments that would protect the safety of Canadians and the value of Canadian citizenship.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, trying to understand the reason and logic behind the Liberal government is something I have struggled with the entire six years I have been in Parliament. It is very difficult sometimes to understand the logic behind decisions.

As I just said, the government does not know how many people this bill would affect, yet it is moving ahead with this legislation. It does not understand the potential number of people with criminal records who might come into the country using this new method of obtaining citizenship, yet it proceeds with this method. It does not understand the implications of not having language or the other things that we think are critical in this particular legislation.

The government does not have the ability to think ahead, to anticipate difficulties or to see how someone with dishonest intentions might be able to take advantage of the situation or abuse the system it created. It is unable to see around corners, as some have said.

In my opinion, this is a weak government producing weak legislation.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments about Bill C-3 today by first recognizing the great work done by Quebeckers to shift the conversation about immigration in our country to a more positive direction.

I want to congratulate Quebec nationalists. For several years now, Quebeckers have not been afraid to talk about immigration, identity and integration. More needs to be done to improve our immigration system. I thank them for their courage.

One of the Quebeckers I would like to acknowledge is a great young man from the beautiful city of Montreal, Mr. Anthony Koch, who took to the pages of the National Post this summer to identify his concerns about an issue that is holding Canada back from having a common-sense conversation about immigration policy. I would like to read some of the words from Mr. Koch for the benefit of those in the House. He wrote:

The fact that my grandparents were immigrants does not mean I must support mass immigration forever. It does not mean I must stand aside while my country becomes unrecognizable. It does not mean I must endorse the strain on schools, hospitals, housing markets and communities that unsustainable immigration levels brings in the name of some imaginary moral debt I never incurred.

I owe nothing to the people who use my heritage as a weapon.

I want to thank Mr. Koch for his words. I would like to highlight his point about how the heritage of the descendants of immigrants is often used by the Liberals as a weapon to wedge us, corner us and make us feel as though we have to agree with their immigration policies. It is immoral, and it is important to note that it is observable in the debates about Bill C-3, formerly known as Bill C-71, in the House.

Members may know I like to do my homework. I combed through the transcripts of the debates on Bill C-3 and found numerous examples of Liberal and NDP MPs making reference to their heritage as immigrants or as the descendant of immigrants, as if that necessitates a certain perspective or position on Bill C-3. Some examples came from the MPs for Vancouver Granville, Kingston and the Islands, Spadina—Harbourfront and Vancouver East, all of whom made reference in the House to their own family heritage or immigration history as if it were relevant to their positions on Bill C-3. That is a textbook example of what Mr. Koch wrote about. It is the tendency of Liberals to weaponize one's heritage against them. I would go so far as to say that it is a textbook example of Liberal racism, which has run amok here in Ottawa.

I would like to explain this further, and I will explain my own family history to provide some contrast.

My father came to this country from Kenya. Someone could make a movie about my father's life. He was born an orphan in Nairobi. He is a Black African man who is very proud of his heritage. He was adopted by an Ismaili family and reorphaned as a teenager, and he had to teach himself how to be a man. He came to this country and worked in hotel restaurants and kitchens. It was hard work and hard labour that took a toll on his body, which one can see in him today. I can assure members that my father did not do all of that hard work so that one day, some smug Liberals in Ottawa could tell his son he has to support Liberal immigration policies and the cheapening of Canadian citizenship.

My grandfather came to this country from Scotland after World War II. He was broke. He had empty pockets. He had not a dollar to his name. He got a good, union job working as a school custodian with the Toronto District School Board. When everyone else went home for the evening, he was still there, working, mopping the floors and cleaning the classrooms so that children had a nice place to learn the next day. I can assure members that he did not mop those floors and clean those classrooms so that one day, some smug Liberals in Ottawa could tell his grandson he has to support Liberal immigration policies and the cheapening of Canadian citizenship.

My grandma came to this country from Ireland after World War II decimated her neighbourhood in Belfast. She came here and met my grandpa, and together, they raised four children. She helped raise grandbabies. She attended church every Sunday. She loved this country and she loved Jesus Christ. She did not do all that work raising children so that one day, some smug Liberals in Ottawa could tell her grandbaby he has to support Liberal immigration policies and the cheapening of Canadian citizenship.

My point is that my family came here to be part of this country. They came here to be free people, which means that we get to have points of view that are different from the Liberals' on important issues, including immigration and citizenship. We are free to say what we believe is best for the future of this country as equal Canadians. The idea that our heritage would be used against us to push us around and make us feel like we have to endorse their broken policies, which have led to public trust and confidence in the immigration system being the lowest they have ever been in my lifetime, is wild.

We reject the weaponization of our heritage. We reject Liberal racism. They can kick rocks. I do not want to hear it. It is a new day in the House of Commons. It is a new day in this country, where people from all diverse religious and cultural backgrounds can stand with confidence and say they reject Liberal immigration policies. We do not agree with them. We do not agree with what they have done to the system.

We are building a diverse and beautiful movement. In my home community of Bowmanville—Oshawa North, people from all religious and cultural backgrounds are coming together and unifying in opposition to what the Liberals have done to immigration in this country. People who grew up speaking English at home and people who learned English much later on in life are building bridges and talking to each other about what has gone wrong with immigration policy in this country.

The Liberals will pay lip service to that and pretend they are making changes, yet we see what is happening in the House right now with Bill C-3. They are doubling down on the very irresponsible and unsustainable approach to immigration that has gotten us to this point. It is a serious problem, and they make light of it.

They think they can tell us, because we are the descendants of immigrants, that we have to line up behind them. No. That is not happening. My grandparents and my father did not work this hard so that we could be pushed around by these guys, and it is not going to happen anymore.

The point I would like to reiterate is that we have very serious problems in the immigration system. If the Liberals want to assure the public they can have trust and confidence that the Liberals can fix the problems, doubling down on the same direction is the wrong way to go. Putting forward legislation and not being able to assure the Canadian people how many individuals will be entering our country as a result of it is them doubling down on the very same broken approach. They are putting forward legislation, and they cannot tell us how many new people would come into our country, despite the overcrowded hospitals, not having enough houses and enough jobs, and traffic in the GTA getting worse and worse every day.

We are supposed to sit back and accept that the very same people who broke the system want to continue going in the wrong direction, and we are not supposed to say anything about it because we are the descendants of immigrants. No. That is unacceptable.

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the good work done by Conservative members on the immigration committee here in Ottawa to present some common-sense amendments to try to salvage the bill and instill some sensibility into a piece of legislation that is horribly flawed. The bill reflects, once again, that the Liberals have learned nothing from the fact that public trust and confidence in our immigration system are at the lowest they have been in my lifetime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will be given enough time to respond fully to the statements that have been made.

I can tell the member that we had an election not that long ago, during which the Prime Minister made a commitment to deal with the immigration issue. That means stabilizing it. We are well on the way to doing that.

There is a reason we are at this stage. Yes, the federal government has to take some responsibility, but so do post-secondary facilities and other stakeholders, like the provinces and so forth. It is not just one government at fault here. The member tries to give the impression that we in the government cannot reflect on our heritage and sees that in a negative way, and then he goes ahead and reflects on his own heritage. There are some inconsistencies.

Will the Conservative Party support Bill C-3?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleagues on the immigration committee put forward a series of amendments asking the Liberal government to make better decisions about immigration policy. The ball is now in the Liberals' court. Are they going to instill some common sense in the legislation or continue doubling down on the very approach that has broken the immigration system we have today?

The member wants to bring up that I referenced my heritage. Let me reaffirm to the member what the point is. We cannot tell, even the Liberals, who love to believe they can, what someone thinks based on what they look like or where they come from. Two people can be descended from immigrants and have a debate about immigration policy.

The Liberals do not get to ascribe to us what we are going to say and believe despite our heritage in this country. We are free people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I participated in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration meetings on Bill C‑3. We heard from expert witnesses, and we carefully analyzed their testimony. Amendments to Bill C‑3 were proposed, debated and supported by the majority of committee members.

Now all of a sudden the Liberals are using some sort of procedural tactic to try to undo, in the House, the amendments that were voted on and supported by the majority of committee members.

What does my colleague think this says about the Liberals' view of the rigorous work we do in committee? That is part of our job as parliamentarians. What does this say about the Liberals' view of democracy and committee work?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could respond to my hon. colleague in French. I am working on it. I will get there at some point.

I agree with my colleague across the way that the Liberal government pretends that it wants to work with people. It says all the time that it just wants to work with us, but it accuses the opposition parties of being obstructionist. We engage in the process that our constituents voted for us to come here and engage in. We present amendments and they pass through committee, yet the Liberals still say no.

It is a sign. They are the obstructionists. The Liberals are the obstructionists here in Ottawa, and their approach to immigration is a perfect example. They pretend they want to change, and they go to their friends in the media and the media amplifies the message that they want to change direction. Look at the numbers. They speak for themselves. The Liberals have broken the system and they do not want to fix it.

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

Mr. Speaker, at a time when our immigration system is already stretched and faith in its fairness is fading, Bill C-3 tells the world that one can 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 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, one 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 all call home?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we should expect a real connection to the country before issuing citizenship to people. That is a bare-minimum expectation that all Canadians from all different cultures, religions and backgrounds can agree to. It is one that is now under attack. A consensus is under attack by the Liberal government. It should be ashamed of itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I spoke to Bill C‑3, a reiteration of Bill C‑71, and Senate Bill S‑245, intended to correct a historic injustice by granting citizenship to Canadians whose files had fallen through the cracks.

I talked about children, born abroad to Canadian parents, who had lost their citizenship because of changes in federal rules or based on other conditions that seemed to me difficult to justify at the time. Basically, what all these bills tell us is that we need to restore citizenship to everyone who lost their status because of exceedingly complex and often unfair provisions of previous Canadian legislation.

In fact, Bill C‑3 incorporates all of the amendments proposed to Bill C‑71, which sought to correct injustice and errors in the Citizenship Act.

The bill responds to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling declaring that the first-generation limit on citizenship applicable to the children of Canadians born abroad is unconstitutional. The government then had six months to amend the law. Bill C‑3 was introduced as a safeguard, because Bill S‑245 and even Bill C‑71 unfortunately could not proceed for partisan reasons.

On this point, I would like to reiterate the following. Despite my occasional differences of opinion with my colleagues from other parties in the House, as we all know, I am not in the habit of engaging in partisanship. I even think that being non-partisan often allows me to do my job well for the people of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, who, since 2019, have allowed me to proudly represent them in the House of Commons. In that sense, and without wanting to be partisan, I still believe that we must at least assess the overall impact of bills such as this on the public.

Let us come back to the matter at hand today. Although some believed it was 500 to 600, IRCC's initial estimates at the time were that between 100 and 200 people had still not regained their citizenship.

In committee, it quickly became apparent that the number of Canadians stripped of their citizenship was difficult to assess. Various publications, including that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, came to the same conclusion. According to the Minister of Immigration, who was there in committee, it would be impossible—that was the word she used—to estimate the number.

Times like these demonstrate the importance of the parliamentary work done in House of Commons committees. As parliamentarians, we must be thorough and mindful of the impact our decisions have. The Bloc Québécois has always worked that way, and it will continue to do so.

Before continuing, I would like to confirm that, as was the case with Bills C‑71 and S‑245, the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑3 as amended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. My colleagues and I have done work on this bill that may have been perceived as harsh, but after gathering some information and analyzing the facts, it was quite obviously necessary.

In particular, the bill was amended in committee to ensure that the requirements for passing on citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad are identical to the requirements for naturalized citizens. Bill C‑3 calls for citizenship to be granted to children as long as one of the parents spends a minimum of 1,095 days in Canada over an indefinite period before the child's birth.

To ensure consistency across federal laws, we supported an amendment calling for this 1,095-day requirement to be met within a five-year period, as is the case for someone seeking citizenship through the immigration process.

We also supported an amendment that will require people who are over 18 at the time of their citizenship application to comply with additional requirements. They would have to meet the same requirements as those imposed on naturalized citizens, namely, to pass a language test, to pass a citizenship knowledge test and to undergo a security assessment.

Furthermore, Bill C-3 will now hold the federal government accountable to some degree. There can never be too much accountability where the federal government is concerned. We will require the tabling of a report containing annual statistics on the number of citizenships granted under this legislation, which seems perfectly normal and understandable to me.

We sincerely believe that these amendments address the court's ruling that we determine what is meant by a real connection to Canada. Since everyone should be considered equal before the law, replicating the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad establishes that the same rules apply to everyone.

The amendments brought forward by the government at this stage are problematic. We know for a fact that they aim to restore amended clauses to their original form, except for the one about the three requirements, in other words, the security, language and citizenship test for persons between 18 and 55 years of age.

In addition, one insidious aim of the amendments is to overturn the careful work done by a majority of committee members to achieve this outcome. In that respect, the Bloc Québécois demands respect for the work of committee members. It blows me away to think that the House needs to be told to respect the work of committee members. For that reason, we are going to oppose the amendments proposed by the government at report stage.

As the House knows, I was in favour of Bills S‑245 and C‑71. I am obviously in favour of quickly passing Bill C‑3 to meet the court's requirements. However, that does not mean I am in favour of shoddy work. I am talking about swift but effective adoption. I am talking about adoption that is the result of rigorous work that has allowed the bill to follow the usual steps, including committee review and the tabling of a report in the House. I am talking about adoption that respects the decision of the majority of members of the House and the important work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I find it a shame when I read amendments like the ones proposed today. I believe they reflect a lack of consideration for the work that is done at committee. As parliamentarians, we need to tackle the issues that matter most to our constituents with a strong sense of duty and without partisanship. At the Bloc Québécois, that is what we always do.

The Chair knows better than anyone in the House that when we step into this place, our goal is always to work for our constituents, not for anyone else. We in the Bloc Québécois are here for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to our electoral ambitions. People know that. They saw the work we did in committee on this bill. They heard the evasive answers from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration officials when we asked them questions in committee.

I sincerely hope that the efforts and energy that my colleagues and I have put into studying this bill will be given due consideration and respect. I want to reiterate that citizenship status must be equal for everyone, and Canadian laws must be consistent.

Despite what my colleagues opposite may think, the amendments adopted by a majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration are consistent with that approach.

I look forward to questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we were to apply the same principle the member is arguing for right now to all legislation that goes before the standing committee, we would not be able to bring in any amendments to legislation. All legislation has to go to committee. What is important to recognize in this debate is that the Conservatives and the Bloc did not work with members who do not have official party status, and as a direct result, amendments were brought forward without them.

Does the member not believe that ultimately the majority of members who make up the House should be the ones who determine the ultimate fate of legislation that gets out of the committee stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that, true to form, the member for Winnipeg North is not acting in good faith, and that is putting it politely.

The amendments introduced by the government are a direct attack on the amendments that were voted on in committee. They simply undo the amendments that were voted on in committee. However, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's remarks in committee, we are not talking about 500, 600, 700, or 1,000 people who would be affected by the bill, but rather 115,000 to 150,000 people. The Minister of Immigration told us that it is impossible to estimate.

We have worked hard to set guidelines to ensure that our work is thorough. This bill is important to people who have experienced injustice. What the government is doing now is simply joining forces with another party that does not sit on the committee and is not there to vote on amendments.

Unfortunately, the work done in committee is being taken lightly by this group, which is always saying it wants to collaborate.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite often talks about the importance of language rights in Canada. I note that one of the amendments passed at committee stage was an amendment to ensure that people who are obtaining citizenship by descent through this very terribly crafted bill by the government would be subject to the same language requirements as somebody who is seeking citizenship by naturalization. This is for adults.

Can the member talk about why he supported this amendment in the context of why it is so important to ensure that people seeking Canadian citizenship have an adequate knowledge of one of Canada's official languages?

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is very important. Obviously, we want to demonstrate that a person who obtains citizenship has a special connection to Canada. That is the first thing. I also think that, when someone of legal age is seeking to acquire citizenship, requiring them to speak one of the two official languages should not even be a question. There are countries where knowing the language is mandatory in order to obtain citizenship, so I believe the work that we did was tough, but perfectly reasonable.

Again, why do people even need to be compelled to learn the national language, which is French in Quebec, before becoming a citizen living in Quebec? At the Bloc Québécois, we take things further. We think that when someone has an address in Quebec and they want to obtain citizenship, they should be fluent in French. As things stand, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it is not even a requirement. A person need only to be fluent in English to become a Canadian citizen, even if they live in Quebec. It makes no sense because French is the official language of Quebec.