Debates of Sept. 15th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, with its large Acadian community, which also speaks French, as do Quebeckers.

I support reforming the Citizenship Act in order to protect the rights of people who have lost their citizenship. However, I would like to propose some amendments.

I have a question for my Liberal colleague. Can it be that the Prime Minister has lost the key to his bulldozer? In June, we did not have time to study any bills. We only had time to get them passed very quickly. However, Bill C‑3 is in need of some major changes.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that Bill C‑3 was one of the first bills introduced by our new government in the early days of this new Parliament last spring. I would suggest that this shows how important this issue is to our new government and how seriously we take this matter.

Of course, time is of the essence when we consider Bill C‑3, since the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that the first-generation limit is unconstitutional. The court granted us a stay of proceedings until November of this year to allow us to examine Bill C‑3. As a result, the parties will need to work together to pass Bill C‑3.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be back in the House of Commons representing the people of Regina—Lewvan.

If I can have some leeway, we obviously had the summer to go back to our ridings to talk to our constituents to find out some of the main points and topics they would like us to discuss here in the House of Commons on their behalf. We did some barbecue circuits and had lots of events in Regina—Lewvan. It is a busy place.

Some things that came up were about affordability. We are facing an affordability crisis in the country. We are also facing a housing crisis and an inflation crisis in this country. Those tie into some of the questions I have regarding Bill C-3 when it comes to what the Liberals are going to do with it. We want to get it to committee so we can put some amendments forward to strengthen it. We agree with some parts of it, but we really want to know what the value of our Canadian citizenship will look like with the Liberals and how it is going to be passed on from generation to generation.

I think the number of Canadian citizens we will be adding is about 115,000. Right now, with the climate in our country, do we know how many would come to Canada? Would there be homes for these people if they came to Canada? These were some of the questions I had when I first glanced at Bill C-3.

One question I would love a Liberal colleague to answer, maybe the member for Winnipeg North, is whether the Liberals consulted with the provinces on this bill. Were there conversations? A lot of the time there are unintended consequences to some of the legislation and policies the Liberals bring forward. If people who get citizenship come back to Canada, what will that look like for the health care system? Have the Liberals thought about that? The health care systems across the provinces are under strain right now. What would this bill do to the health care system in Saskatchewan or Manitoba? When we look at a bill like this, I would say there are a lot of potential unintended consequences to adding that many citizens to this country.

I know a Conservative senator put forward a bill like this in the other place, but Bill C-3 broadens the scope of birthright citizenship substantially. We have questions about expanding that scope. How much pressure does it put on the programs and systems we have in our country that are already on the verge of not being able to handle the influx of people who access those systems, such as health care and education? When we look at this bill, we really want to make some amendments to it. I believe some of my colleagues have talked about working collaboratively in the new session to make sure we have good pieces of legislation going forward for the Canadian people. That is something we look forward to doing by putting forward amendments.

Bill C-3 is the latest attempt by the Liberals to overhaul Canada's citizenship laws. Originally introduced as Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament, it builds on Conservative Senator Yonah Martin's Bill S-245, which targeted a narrow group that was inadvertently affected by the 2009 reforms under the Harper government. This is something we have had our eye and focus on to make sure there is some fairness for the people who were affected in 2009. However, rather than maintaining that focus, as I mentioned earlier, the NDP used its alliance with the Liberals at committee to push forward sweeping changes well beyond the bill's intent. Then when Bill S-245 was stalled, the Liberals reintroduced the expanded version of Bill C-71 in the last in Parliament, which is now Bill C-3.

This legislation drastically broadens access to citizenship far beyond what we can support. It includes measures responding to the December 2023 Ontario Superior Court ruling that struck down the first-generation limitation on citizenship for children born abroad. That was not appealed by the federal government. Under Bill C-3, citizenship would be extended to those born outside Canada with at least one Canadian parent who has lived in Canada for 1,095 non-consecutive days.

That brings up several other questions. How is that going to be regulated? Who is going to oversee it to make sure that criteria is met?

We know that the immigration system is at a breaking point. In Regina—Lewvan, we have a very diverse community, and I would say that about 80% of the cases in our office have something to do with the IRCC. Are the Liberals going to hire more people to ensure that this criteria is met? Who is going to take on the extra bureaucracy to ensure that the criteria laid out in this piece of legislation is met? Perhaps a member from across the aisle could answer that for us as well.

We know there are long wait times at the IRCC. Is this going to add more to those wait times for people who have been waiting years sometimes to get answers from the IRCC? As my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake mentioned, this bill would put in place a two-tier system where some people who have been waiting for years and years for an answer from IRCC would be queue-jumped by people who would be given citizenship without some of the criteria we have outlined.

There is the conversation about what the language criteria would look like. That is something else that is not in this bill.

Also, there is no criminal record check for people who are going to become Canadian citizens. Is that something this House is prepared to move forward with? Do we not want to know if the people who are becoming Canadian citizens have a criminal record? That really has to be delved into at the committee level as well.

These are all pretty understandable questions, and questions that people would have if I were to be in support of this legislation. Have the Liberals asked those questions? Have they, on our behalf, made sure that those checks and balances have been taken into consideration?

I really would like a member of the Liberal Party to stand up and talk about the consultations with provincial immigration ministers about this piece of legislation. Was consultation done showing that the policy put forward is something the provinces agree with? As in my remarks earlier, a lot of these programs that may be accessed fall into provincial jurisdiction, and there is a lot more burden on them. Health care would for sure be one of them. Are people going to come back for our health care system if they have Canadian citizenship? I do not know the answer to that. Have the Liberals thought of that potential strain on the system? Are more people who have citizenship going to come back to Canada to access education? That is another question that would be asked.

The question I have is, what is the total number of people? I think I have heard that it is around 115,000. Has that grown over the last couple of years? Is it more or less? When it comes to our systems, that really needs to be answered.

Do not only take it from me. These are questions that lots of other people are asking as well. Someone who has a much broader knowledge of the immigration system than me, Sergio Karas, principal of Karas Immigration Law Professional Corporation, said in 2024:

Introducing tens of thousands of new citizens without a robust integration plan is reckless. Our social infrastructure is buckling, and health care is under severe pressure. The lack of a clear strategy for accommodating this potential population surge only heightens concerns.

It is not just me asking these questions; there are lots of other people who have similar concerns about this piece of legislation. Another person I would like to put on the record is Krisha Dhaliwal, Canadian immigration and citizenship lawyer: “At this point, details have not been provided regarding what kinds of evidence will be required to demonstrate the 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada.” I mentioned that earlier. Who is going to be the arbitrator of that? Who is going to make sure that criteria has been followed, and how robust will that be? Those are some of the questions we would like answered at the committee level.

I think this bill does something that we as Conservatives take very seriously and puts into question the value of Canadian citizenship. In other countries, it is not the case that people can have next-generation citizenship. A lot of our peer countries have much different criteria for their citizenship, and we should look at best practices around the world to see what they do and how they make sure their citizenship is valued. This is why we have those questions.

As I said, Canada is a beautiful, welcoming country, but we have questions about the criteria and what this legislation would look like. It would put a strain on the system and on our provincial partners as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns that the member has expressed. When it comes to consultation, consultations are always done for government legislation. I will put to the member the issue I have. Here we have legislation on which a couple of Conservatives have stood up to say that there are individuals who should receive their citizenship. There is no reason whatsoever why, after having had hours and hours of debate, we should not see the legislation go to committee. It is a minority government, meaning the government cannot ram the bill through a committee. It takes a majority of members to pass an amendment.

If the Conservatives are so confident in the need for changes, why would they not want to see the bill go to committee? Conservative voters themselves want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, with a new session, there is a new demeanor. I appreciate the calm demeanor of my colleague from Winnipeg North. Sometimes he gets a little robust in his debate.

I find it interesting that the member who probably speaks the most on the floor of the House of Commons has an issue with us standing up and putting our concerns on the record for our constituents. I think a bit of debate and having members address the concerns they hear in their ridings is a good part of democracy. I feel that this is the proper process, and when we get to the committee level, we are looking forward to putting forth amendments that will make this piece of legislation better. We will see if those are accepted by the other parties in the House.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I love the comment from our colleague across the way, saying we should not worry, it will all get sorted out and Liberals will work with everybody to make things better. I have been here for 10 years and have yet to really see any of that take place.

In the office of my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, the immigration cases far outweigh any of the other cases we do. They are absolutely heartbreaking. There is Maya, whose case we dealt with, a lovely lady from Syria who came to Prince George to take her master's degree. She was by herself. She left her husband behind and worked for years to get her husband into our country. There is also a gentleman by the name of Mal. He worked desperately to get his wife and children from India here. These are families that are separated, torn far apart, and it is absolutely heartbreaking when we hear their stories.

My question to our hon. colleague is this: Do we know whether other peer countries, like the United States, Britain, Italy and France, follow suit with the same practice of passing citizenship on to children who are born abroad?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hard work the member does for his constituents in Cariboo—Prince George. I do appreciate the fact that the question is something I mentioned in my speech.

I would say it is not the standard of practice in the United States, Britain, France, Italy or a number of our peer countries, which, with the rare exception, have capped passing on citizenship to the first generation born outside of the country. We are definitely not in line with our partner countries.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about Bill C‑5, we are talking about human beings, about families.

Let me be clear: The Bloc Québécois will be supporting the bill. Just because we are members of the Bloc Québécois does not mean we think only about the people of Quebec. Among other things, there are real people behind this inequity, which has been described as unconstitutional. Despite the opposition and the fact that comprehensive reform is needed, I dare hope that we can move on to other, equally important issues, and finish with this one.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would agree that reforms are needed, especially when it comes to some kind of language criteria. I believe my colleague would agree with that. Those are some of the adjustments that need to be made at committee level, but following the process and ensuring that people do get to speak in the House of Commons about legislation is a good part of the process. I think people do have comments they want to put on the record to reflect the desires and opinions of their constituents.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. The proposed bill has three pieces to it to address issues related to citizenship by descent, lost citizenship and the status of born-abroad or adopted children of Canadian citizens. The stated aim is to ensure that individuals born to or adopted by Canadian parents outside Canada have a path to obtaining or retaining Canadian citizenship.

Canada is a beautiful, sovereign and distinct nation with a rich history and free democracy, with values and an identity that have been built and that have existed for longer than just our lifetime. Canadian citizenship, as defined by former minister for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism Jason Kenney, “is more than a legal status, more than a passport. We expect citizens to have an ongoing commitment, connection and loyalty to Canada.”

Former Liberal minister for citizenship and immigration Lucienne Robillard said, “We [ought] to share our citizenship with those who want it and work hard to deserve it.”

While the Liberal government claims that it is trying to right historical wrongs by loosening its test of connection to our country, it is proposing to remove safeguards and to allow citizenship to be granted without the need for connection, engaging civically or contributing to the social safety nets in Canada that many rely on. In other words, it is proposing to share our citizenship with people who do not want to, in the words of the former Liberal minister, “work hard to deserve it”.

The bill contains elements that could undermine trust at a time when Canadians are seeking to unite in the midst of uncertainty. The bill, however, is also nothing new. It was tabled by the previous Liberal government as Bill C-71 and, before that, in the Senate, as Bill S-245, which was heavily altered by the Liberals and New Democrats, yet another classic example of a Liberal band-aid-like solution to a problem without considering the consequences.

Citizenship is a connection to a home. It is loyalty to one's country. Canadian citizenship comes with a promise that anyone from anywhere can achieve anything if they are willing to work hard. Reducing the requirement to obtain citizenship threatens to undermine the millions of Canadians who have come for decades, fleeing persecution, violence and war, or those seeking to give a better life to their children than they had. It required a process, and it required effort. It required planting roots in Canada, involving themselves in their community and engaging with their fellow Canadians.

Each province within Canada has unique needs, interests, identities and culture. Some have their own distinct language. One provision in Bill C-3 would require a person to live in Canada for 1,095 days. However, it would not require the 1,095 days to be consecutive, meaning that Canadian citizenship may not require participation or a love for their province and the country.

My riding is rural, and families from Saskatchewan have had roots planted in their community for generations, caring and working for the success of one another. It takes time and commitment, resulting in a way of life that is loved and respected by those around them. The west was settled by pioneers, people who risked everything, leaving the comforts of what was known, in order to build a life elsewhere that could be better. The key here is to build a life. It is important that this experience is also shared by those people seeking Canadian citizenship.

Justin Trudeau spent years devaluing and trying to erase what makes up the Canadian identity, referring to Canada as a “postnational state”. Measures like the one set out in Bill C-3 devalue the importance of choosing Canada as a home with shared duties and responsibilities. While the Liberals had no clue and were unable to even guess how many people the change could affect, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that if the bill passes, more than 100,000 new people would be granted citizenship in five years.

At a time when Canadians feel that the health care system and our economy are more fragile than ever, the Liberal government wants to issue new citizenship without requiring that the people in question pay taxes, just to reside in Canada from time to time over the course of their lifetime. With no requirement that it be consecutive or accomplished within a time frame, and for those of descent, citizenship could be passed to those who have never lived in Canada.

Conservatives will always support positive changes that seek to correct issues to current legislation. That is why it is so difficult to support the bill in its current form. At the time the bill was introduced, not even the parliamentary secretary had read it until that same morning. The legislation seems to create more challenges than it solves. We owe it to both Canadians and newcomers to handle this fragile system with the utmost care. I fail to see that this is what is happening with the last-minute communications from a minister to a parliamentary secretary when it was introduced.

For example, let us talk about the backlog in citizenship applications. The backlog is in the hundreds of thousands, while the government has failed to meet its own metrics for processing applications in spades. There are no details that outline what background checks would look like or even whether they would occur at all. Canadians should be able to expect that their elected leaders would consider their safety ahead of rushed solutions.

The department, IRCC, has nearly a million total applicants outside acceptable processing times. That is on top of the more than one million applicants it claims are waiting for their application to be resolved. What is the plan to solve the new influx of citizenship applications if we are going to add 30% more in just five years? Adding more seems like a plan to fail, more than it seems like a plan.

I hope for the sake of Canadians that the bill is not an example of how the Liberal government plans to enact changes, by simply rushing the process instead of fixing the deep-rooted issues it has spent the last 10 years creating.

Conservatives know that it is not just the legislation that is the issue; it is also that the Liberal government continues to put bandages over a broken immigration system. Canadians are looking for change from the fourth-term Liberal government, change that delivers on the promises the Liberals made in the last election rather than the same old band-aid solutions that may cause even more damage.

While we are a generous and compassionate nation, citizenship must be valued, and immigration should work for the betterment of Canadians and Canada. Conservatives will always stand on the side of a fair and robust system that does not disenfranchise Canadians or potentially risk their safety.

That is why Conservatives, through Bill S-245, sought to correct the very changes the Liberals are now claiming to fix, but without creating more problems for our already overburdened immigration system. The members opposite me are using the bill that the Conservatives brought forward to put forward their own ideological biases. The Liberals changed it and then stalled it in the Senate. They have never given an account to Canadians and to those they claim they are trying to help for why they delayed the solution we brought forward and why they put their own interests first. I think that is shameful.

While the Liberals say it is because of an Ontario court ruling from June 2023, a ruling they never appealed, it is now an emergency, and only because they have not been able to propose a decent piece of legislation and get it passed in the last two years. Canadians deserve and should be able to expect better from their government.

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

Madam Speaker, the member uses the word “broken”, and this is something that Pierre Poilievre likes to talk about, to give a false impression—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows that he should not mention other members by name.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thought we could use his name as long as he has not been brought to the bar.

The former member for Carleton consistently talks about Canada being broken. Now he is talking about immigration being broken, yet he sat around a cabinet table where it took years to be able to sponsor a spouse and where the then minister of immigration deleted literally hundreds of thousands of files of people who were in that process for years.

Yes, there are issues with immigration. There could even be issues of concern with respect to Bill C-3. Even Conservative speakers have indicated there is a need to pass elements of Bill C-3 in order to provide justice, for individuals to be able to receive their citizenship. One of the first steps in achieving that justice is recognizing that even Conservative voters want to see more co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons so we can give that justice.

My question for the member is this. Would she not agree that Conservatives can talk and debate, even at committee stage, and bring forward amendments, and all they need to do is get the support of the majority? After all, it is a minority government. If their arguments are that strong, surely to goodness they would be able to pass it at committee stage.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe that not only I but others who have already spoken to this piece of legislation this morning have indicated that we believe in a strong, fair and meaningful Canadian citizenship. We also support restoring citizenship to lost Canadians and equal treatment for adopted children. However, as we have stated, the bill goes far beyond that, cheapening the value of Canadian citizenship by creating a new system of unlimited chain migration, which only serves to undermine our national identity.

I look forward to watching what happens at committee. I trust that, based on what the member has said, members of the Liberal caucus who serve on that committee would be more than open to the amendments we bring forward.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her debate and her tone.

I would like her to expand on her question. What amendments will the Conservatives move in committee to improve the bill? Above all, when she talks about a loophole that the bill might create for some immigrants, what loophole is she referring to, exactly? I would like to better understand my colleague, and I think it is a matter of general interest.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would not presume to pre-empt what the members on the committee that will be reviewing this piece of legislation may choose to bring forward and what they may choose to bring forward based on the testimony they may hear in regard to this piece of legislation.

I believe that, as in the past, we have a case here of some deeply flawed legislation being proposed. We have already indicated some of the things that we have difficulty with. The government does not know the number of people this will impact, it does not know what the costs are, and it has not been able to confirm processes that need to be put in place in order to follow up with its 1,095-day requirement.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North stands up once again, points fingers and says that all the Conservatives say is, “It is broken.” Well, this file is broken, and the truth is that the Liberals broke it. Our country was built on the backs of immigrants. Immigration is so important to our country, yet the Liberals broke it. They lost track of over a million immigrants coming into our country; we know that from the last session.

I know our hon. colleague, who I have the deepest respect for, has heard some of the same stories that I have in my constituency. Could the member share another story of a constituent in her riding who has some deep fears about this piece of legislation?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek has 10 seconds.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think I would have difficulty choosing just one story because, as my hon. colleague pointed out, immigration issues consume a lot of our time in our ridings.

I will say this: Conservatives will continue to support a system that is one of integrity and security and is based on responsible policy. We will continue to support—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Unfortunately, we have to resume debate; we are way over time.

The hon. member for Niagara South.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in this place after a very eventful summer. It is nice to see my colleagues. Welcome back to you, Madam Speaker.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Niagara South. Today we are debating an important piece of legislation that seeks to make amendments to the Citizenship Act and that for a third time is up for debate in this chamber.

For those who have not been following Bill C-3, it is the third iteration, which started as Bill S-245 in the other place, introduced in the last Parliament. The original iteration of the bill was commendable and received bipartisan support from this chamber. In it, the bill sought to achieve two key changes, with the first relating to adoption.

Currently, if parents adopt a child from abroad, once the adoption is completed they are required to file a permanent residency application on behalf of the child. The financial cost associated with this can be quite high, often requiring the services of an immigration consultant or lawyer, and the process can be incredibly stressful and time-consuming for the family seeking to adopt. That bill and Bill C-3 would do away with that process entirely and instead allow for the adopted child to obtain citizenship as if they were born in Canada, the moment the adoption itself is finalized. This is a positive change and one that Conservatives support.

The second component of the original bill dealt with the issue of lost Canadians, a topic with which I was unfamiliar prior to arriving here. This deals with restoring citizenship to a group of people born between 1977 and 1981 who had lost their citizenship as a result of a glitch in our immigration system. Again, Conservatives supported this provision.

What is the issue that our side has with this bill? The problem lies with the third component of this bill, which did not exist until the Liberal-NDP coalition hijacked the original bill at committee stage in the last Parliament. During clause-by-clause review, and by way of last-minute changes, the Liberals inserted a controversial clause creating multi-generational citizenship, which went far beyond the original intent of the bill. Ultimately, because of this last-minute change, which sought to fundamentally alter the way citizenship is passed on in Canada for citizens living abroad, this bill got bogged down in committee and died on the Order Paper.

The government proceeded to reintroduce the bill as a government bill, Bill C-71, which also failed to pass. Today, the government is trying again, for a third time, introducing what is effectively the same bill with the same controversies and somehow expecting it to have a different result. Let us take a moment to look at what multi-generational citizenship is and the issues we have with it.

Currently, passing on Canadian citizenship to children born abroad is subject to the first-generation limit introduced by the Harper government in 2009 through Bill C-37. The first-generation limit states that only the first generation of children born abroad can automatically claim and obtain Canadian citizenship. A Canadian citizen can pass on their citizenship to their child born outside of Canada, but the next generation also born abroad would not automatically receive it. This new bill would change that by creating a substantial connection test. Specifically, if a parent wants to pass citizenship to their child, they must prove that they have spent at least 1,095 non-consecutive days physically present in Canada at one point in their lives before the birth of their child abroad, subject to some conditions.

This means that citizenship now is multi-generational, as parents no longer have to be born in Canada. This can translate into having a family permanently living abroad, with multiple generations born outside Canada, gaining citizenship. To assist those watching, imagine this scenario: A second-generation Canadian parent who has been living abroad for nearly their entire life could, in theory, send their kids to school in Canada for three years, at a discounted rate, and that would make those children eligible for Canadian citizenship.

That person would never have to file a T1 in Canada or be required to speak either of our two official languages, yet they would be eligible for citizenship, given the simple fact that at one point in their life they spent three non-consecutive years visiting Canada. Their child could, in fact, repeat the process for their children and pass on citizenship onto yet another generation. That is akin to generational citizenship in perpetuity. The only requirement is the three-year stay in Canada.

I am proud to be Canadian. I ran for public office to better the lives of the people in my community, bring investments to the Niagara region and advocate for the issues that the people in my community care deeply about.

Individuals who were born abroad and who have spent their entire adult lives there, do not pay taxes here and do not have any real connection to the sense of community that makes us Canadian should not be eligible for citizenship, in my opinion. To allow individuals who have never truly lived here to enjoy all the benefits that come with being a Canadian citizen, including health care, government pensions, voting, protection from our government while abroad or even the privilege of running as an elected official, seems wrong to me.

Frankly, in my opinion and that of many of my Conservative colleagues, these amendments diminish the value of our citizenship and turn what otherwise would have been a very good piece of legislation into a piece of bad legislation.

If members opposite took the time to speak to some of the permanent residents in their riding who pay taxes, contribute to our communities and are building lives here with their families, I believe they would find that they too agree with the Conservative position and are frustrated with how people with such inconsequential connections to Canada could obtain citizenship.

Most importantly, the legislation assumes the government would be able to properly manage it. The success and implementation of these changes are based on whether IRCC or CBSA would in fact verify when Canadians arrive and when they leave to determine whether they are eligible to meet the substantial connection test of 1,095 days. This is a monumental task when one considers that over four million Canadian citizens currently live abroad, according to Stats Canada. This opens the door to yet another enormous bureaucratic burden and cost.

The staff in my constituency office have been flooded with requests and complaints this past summer regarding IRCC's poor handling of immigration casework and the backlogs it faces. Members will pardon me for not having faith in the Liberal government, which cannot even seem to deliver passports on time, let alone track the movement of millions of citizens abroad.

Lastly, I would like to comment on the view that the Conservatives were obstructionist with the legislation at committee in the last Parliament. First, the concerns regarding fundamental changes to multi-generational citizenship are quite legitimate, and debating the issue of whether individuals with few ties to Canada should receive citizenship is indeed a valid concern worth significant discussion. Some of these individuals may have spent their entire life abroad except for three short nonconsecutive years; this is not substantial enough and is like counting vacation days to qualify for citizenship.

Citizenship is the most valuable asset one can enjoy in Canada. Citizens should know and learn about our values, our history and the very fabric of our nation. These are things that should not be simply discarded or replaced over an 1,100-day stay in Canada. To that end, I look forward to working with other members of the committee to dive deeper into these issues in good faith so that we can move forward with what otherwise would have been a very good piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I will use a hypothetical example: A third-generation Canadian, who was born, raised, everything, here in Canada, has a child, and that child, upon hitting five years old, moves with the family to any European country, or to any other country in the world, lives there for 30, 40 or 50 years, and then makes the determination that they want to come back. Would the member then apply the very same principles he is espousing today of them not having that connection?

The 1,095 days that the Conservatives continue to talk about is something that qualifies an individual to become a permanent resident to Canada. There are some requirements to qualify to become a citizen. Depending on the age, there might be an English requirement or a French requirement. There is the 1,095 days requirement. Is the Conservative Party suggesting that we should be changing the 1,095 days?

The Conservative Party needs to recognize that its members might have some ideas that are good to have some debate on, but let us respond to what Conservative voters are saying and have a more robust sense of co-operation in getting legislation to committees, where they can have the kind of debate the member seems to want to have.

Would the member not agree that it is time to allow legislation to actually go to committee, as opposed to talking endlessly in regards to it, so that Canadians would get what they want, which is a robust opposition that wants to co-operate, just like the government?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there.

Let me say this: We have concerns about the legislation. There are two or three components that we agree with, and we are quite happy to dive into this at committee.

What I am not in favour of, and what our party is not in favour of, is citizenship in perpetuity being given to people who may not have ever set foot in Canada to become Canadian citizens. To me, that is absurd.

We will debate this, diving into the legislation at committee, and we will put forward amendments to improve it. I do not see what is wrong with that. The member suggests that we are talking endlessly, but this is what we do in this place when legislation is presented at second reading. We debate it, and we present our opinions, on the record.

I look forward to having this sent to committee, as well as reviewing it and the improvements from this side of the House.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Niagara South for his speech. I think it is appropriate to send him my regards for the first time in this Parliament.

I would like to know more about the Conservatives' position. This morning, it felt as though Niagara Falls was such a sieve that it was about to become the new Roxham Road.

However, that is not what I take from this bill. I would like my colleague to clearly explain to me what the loophole is that, if I understood his previous colleague's intervention correctly, would open Canada's borders to hundreds of thousands of people for citizenship in perpetuity.

What exactly are the Conservatives afraid of and, more importantly, what concrete, pragmatic and simple solutions will they propose in committee to fix this loophole?

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's reference to Niagara Falls is quite timely. I was in Niagara Falls the other day with the mayor of the community. We were walking down Fallsview Boulevard, and he was pointing out all the hotels that are full of people waiting to have their refugee applications dealt with, at hundreds of millions of dollars in cost to the taxpayer. This goes to the heart of part of the reason we have an issue with this bill.

The backlog at IRCC to have files dealt with, in some cases, is up to two years. That is one of the issues that could be created with this bill if it were to pass in its current form. The backlog and the burden on IRCC and CBSA is going to be overwhelming, and it is going to be very costly to the taxpayer.

Niagara Falls is not the next Roxham Road, but I can tell the member that there are serious issues affecting that community now because we cannot get a handle on our immigration cases.