Debates of Sept. 15th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my wonderful constituents in Canada's number one riding, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. It was a great summer, and I appreciate all the feedback I received from them. I am motivated to serve on their behalf and to fight for the things that were discussed during the election, namely addressing the affordability crisis, the cost of living challenges that young families are facing, rising crime and a ballooning deficit that may be out of control. We do not know because we have not seen a budget tabled.

The government had all summer to work on all of those priorities. In fact, the Liberal platform, on page one and two, talked about being at war, “economic war”, with the United States, yet on our first day back, we are debating a bill and a major policy provision within that legislation that will fundamentally change what it means to be Canadian. This was not in the platform. It was not in the commitments made by the Prime Minister during the summer or really any time since he was appointed and subsequently elected to the top office in our country.

For people listening in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, the reason we have this legislation before us today is that in 2023, Justice Akbarali of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the 2009 provisions to the Citizenship Act were unconstitutional. The Trudeau government had the opportunity to appeal to subsequent courts. Maybe this legislation or this question before us today should have gone to the Supreme Court, but the government decided we were better to leave it in the hands of a provincial court and not have the superior court of our country, the Supreme Court of Canada, make a decision on what constitutes being a Canadian.

I will note that there are some provisions in this legislation that were originally in Bill S-245, namely the extension of citizenship to restore citizenship to lost Canadians who were affected between 1977 and 1981. There are also provisions for children adopted by Canadians to ensure that their citizenship held the same quality as Canadians born on Canadian soil. I will note that I support those two provisions. They are good provisions and I want to see them passed.

However, with respect to the substantive part of this legislation, namely the substantial connection clause outlined by the Ontario justice as a recommendation, I have very many concerns, mainly around the integrity of Canadian citizenship. What does it mean to be a Canadian in the 21st century? What are the duties of citizenship? What duties does the Government of Canada have toward its citizens? All of these questions should be debated today in the House of Commons and in subsequent days because this legislation will impact how we move forward and how we see citizenship.

I hope the minister, if this bill passes second reading, will answer those questions for all Canadians. How is it fair to the immigrants who spent years building a life here? What prevents another wave of Canadians of convenience who only show up for benefits? Why is the government lowering the bar by counting non-consecutive days under the substantial connection clause when other countries in the G7, for example, require far stricter rules for family ties?

I want the minister to outline how Bill C-3 will impact Canada's security. Under the current rules for IRCC, all immigrants, all those on work visas, all refugees go through some type of security check. By extending citizenship to the grandchildren of Canadians, I believe the minister should outline how Canada's public safety will be impacted.

The second thing I would like to discuss as it relates to extending citizenship to possibly hundreds of thousands of people around the world is how it would impact the responsibilities of Canadians to serve in the Canadian military during a war. What impact would this have on conscription?

Right now, for example, there are over 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong. There are probably over a million Canadians living in the United States. There are between 40,000 and 50,000 Canadians living in Lebanon. There are probably over 20,000 Canadians living in Pakistan.

If the government were to implement conscription, how would it apply to Canadians living abroad? Would they be required, like the children born here, to bear arms for Canada, or would they be exempt?

We have seen the second aspect of obligations related to this legislation bear out in previous natural disasters and conflicts around the world, namely in Lebanon. Indeed, former prime minister Harper brought in stricter generational limits to citizenship in response to the outcry from Canadians who wondered why the Government of Canada had to send the Royal Canadian Navy to rescue hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were living in Lebanon without any real ties to our country anymore but who still held Canadian citizenship.

The government did the right thing, something I support, and went and protected those people. By extending citizenship to possibly hundreds of thousands more people, the minister needs to come clean about what obligations the Government of Canada would have to those people and how it would respond to a humanitarian crisis where hundreds of thousands of Canadians might be living.

We do not have those answers, and the minister needs to come clean about how she would respond to those situations. We only need to look to Hong Kong and the conflicts we have seen there with the erosion of democracy. How would Canada respond to the citizens of Hong Kong in an emergency or in any other major conflict that could possibly erupt in Asia?

IRCC is very slow. IRCC does not do a very good job. In fact, it places an administrative burden on every single member in the House. I have to employ a full-time staff member to make up for the inability of a government department to do its job and properly process legitimate applications to reside in Canada on a daily basis.

When we take an oath as a member of Parliament, it is not to be a satellite office for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. No, our job is to approve and disapprove the spending of Parliament, to be representatives and to pass legislation. The work we do is symptomatic of the failure of Canada's bureaucracy to uphold and fulfill its duties to Canadians.

With the passage of this legislation, the minister needs to be clear on what administrative burden the government will be putting on the overworked public servants at IRCC and the inability of management to fix the long-standing issues we see in the country.

Finally, as I am running out of time, the last point I would like to raise is on voting. If we extend citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are the descendants of people born in Canada, their grandchildren, how will that impact elections?

Let us think about Nepean. Mr. Chandra was ousted from the Liberal Party after he ran for Liberal leadership. The Prime Minister is now the member for Nepean. What would stop Mr. Chandra from organizing all of these new Canadians in India to vote against the Prime Minister in Nepean?

Citizens living abroad get to choose whatever riding they like to vote in under the Canada Elections Act. The minister needs to come clean about how citizenship and elections would be impacted by this legislation.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Canada Elections Act requires somebody to swear that they are voting in the last riding that they lived in in Canada, and they have to disclose that address. Would that not be correct, and would that not prevent some of what the hon. member is suggesting might happen?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I am raising. It would bring into legitimacy the ability of Canadians to uphold the integrity of the existing laws. The Elections Canada Act also provides the right for every Canadian to vote. I do not believe there would be the necessary provisions under the Canada Elections Act to prevent this from happening, and that is why I raise that point.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised many important points, particularly around the changing work in our constituency offices. I know that many offices face issues similar to what he has raised where a vast majority of our work is doing immigration caseload. I was wondering if he could get into a little more detail on some of what he is seeing in his riding.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing, which is that I have dealt with lost Canadians and the struggles they faced. I am glad that the bill includes the provisions from Bill S-245, which is very important. I want to see those people made whole, and I want to see that passed.

However, in general, there is a lot of pressure on my staff to deal with people in very precarious situations. It is the temporary foreign worker who has not had a proper work visa for the last couple of months who is now working under the table and is at risk of being trafficked. There is a lot of abuse in the temporary foreign worker program, and they come to MPs looking for help. They cannot get that help from government agencies. There is close to zero enforcement of our immigration policies in the Fraser Valley where we see a high proportion of Canada's immigrants first land.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made an empathetic comment about lost Canadians. The issue of the lost Canadians is dealt with in this bill, yet it would appear that the Conservatives want to filibuster this legislation. Why not recognize the good that is within the legislation and allow the legislation to be discussed and debated at committee stage so that we can actually pass the legislation?

I think the Conservatives are starting to already fall into their old ways of filibustering and not letting legislation pass when Canadians want us all to co-operate more.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on Bill C-3. It is maybe the second day of debate we have had on the bill in the 21 days of Parliament in 2025.

I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to listen to the words of the Prime Minister this morning when he spoke about all of the great women elected to the Liberal Party of Canada. Unfortunately, they do not get the opportunity to speak, because the member speaks multiple times during the day and other members of the Liberal caucus are not afforded the same opportunity to represent their constituents.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague have concerns about how Bill C-3 would create a bit of a two-tiered system when it comes to immigration, particularly with what is being proposed by the Liberals in that there would be no criminal record checks required for the in-perpetuity chain immigration?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to be very brief, I am concerned about two-tiered citizenship being created as a result of the bill. I hope that, if it moves forward to committee stage, the minister can come clean and outline, and listen to the positive feedback Conservatives have been providing in the House today to strengthen the provisions in response to the Ontario courts.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to extend my deepest thanks to the people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. Over the summer, I had the honour of connecting with so many of my constituents. I want to thank them in person, over the phone, through social media and by email.

I represent one of the most beautiful places in Canada. From Castlegar to Princeton, Grand Forks to Oliver, Midway to Penticton and all the communities in between, I heard our stories, our concerns and, most of all, I heard the pride we have for our country. I carry that with me every time I rise in the House. Today is no exception.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This is not a routine adjustment to our laws. This bill proposes to change the very definition of Canadian citizenship, and that should concern every one of us. At a time when our national identity, our core values and even our sovereignty are being tested, we must be vigilant.

This legislation touches the heart of what it means to be Canadian and, unfortunately, it misses the mark. Bill C-3, in this form, cheapens the value of Canadian citizenship, which so many people have worked so hard for. As someone who has had the privilege of becoming a Canadian citizen more than 25 years ago, I do not speak of citizenship lightly. I speak from a place of gratitude and a deep personal commitment to the country.

Canadian citizenship is not just a part of who I am; it is an honour that my family and I carry every day. It is a bond of loyalty that I will never take for granted, as it is for everyone in the House. It is the most valuable passport in the world.

That is why I oppose Bill C-3 in its current form. At the core of the bill is what the government calls a substantial connection requirement for passing on citizenship to children who are born abroad. That sounds sensible until we read the fine print. This requirement is just 1,095 non-consecutive days spent in Canada at any point in a parent's life, even in childhood. Let me be honest. That is not substantial. It is symbolic at best, a loophole at worst. It is not a serious test of one's connection to Canada. It is a back door to citizenship through convenience.

I have an acquaintance who lives in another country and currently has four passports. I believe this would allow her to have her fifth. Is that really what we want when we are looking for a Canadian citizen? She has never lived here before. Under this bill, someone could be born here, leave at age three, live the rest of their life abroad and still pass on citizenship to their grandchild, despite never having any ties to Canada after all those years. Is that really the standard we want, in terms of what it means to be Canadian?

Canadian citizenship should not be considered a fallback plan. It is not a souvenir from a visit and not a privilege to be passed down indefinitely, without connection, contribution or commitment. It should be earned and lived and shared. It is a legal status, of course, but also so much more. It is an identity rooted in belonging, responsibility and, most importantly, participation in Canadian life, yet the bill would risk stripping citizenship of that meaning, reducing it to a piece of paper available to those with the thinnest links to our country.

There is a possibility, although we do not know for sure, that this could add 150,000 more immigrants to our shores. It could cost $25 million or not, maybe more. Enough study has not been done. Could this buckle our health care system, our pension system and our immigration system, which is already struggling, as every member in the House will attest to through their office work?

Conservatives have always stood for citizenship that is fair, principled and deeply meaningful. We support restoring citizenship to those who were unjustly stripped of it in the past, the lost Canadians. We backed legislation led by Senator Yonah Martin to do exactly that. We also continue to support equal treatment for adoptive children born abroad. That is a long-standing Conservative principle and one that we have consistently defended as a party, but let me be absolutely clear: We will not support a government attempting to rewrite the rules of citizenship behind closed doors, without public debate and without a mandate from voters.

This change in citizenship was nowhere in the Liberals' 2025 election platform, so Canadians were never consulted until now, as MPs, we are debating this issue, and now this government wants to quietly reshape the future of Canadian citizenship without asking whether we as a nation are prepared for the consequences of how this would affect our health care system and our housing crisis. The committee work is going to need to be intense.

The government chose to accept the opinion of a single Ontario judge without appeal, without review and without even asking the Supreme Court for clarity. The ruling did not demand the changes we see in this bill. In fact, the judge clearly stated that Parliament retains authority to establish a genuine test of substantial connection, but instead the Liberals chose a definition so weak it could be met by a few childhood summer vacations.

I contrast us with our allies, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, all of which enforce much stricter requirements, including criminal record checks, for the transmission of citizenship. A criminal record check before receiving citizenship is necessary for the safety of the people who are living here in this country now. This bill does not even include this most basic safeguard.

Legal experts in immigration law are sounding the alarm. For example, Sergio Karas, who is a leading voice in the field, warned, “This requirement [for a substantial connection to Canada] could create a significant administrative burden [to Canada]”, and, “The subjective and...manipulable nature of proving a...connection could lead to inconsistencies and legal challenges”.

Canadian citizenship is the cornerstone of our national identity, and if we dilute it, we weaken the very fabric of our society. Our communities are hurting in so many ways as we speak. Conservatives are ready to do the hard work. We are prepared to collaborate in committee. We support the necessary parts of this legislation, the fair redress of those previously wronged and the recognition of adopted children as equals in citizenship laws, but we will not support a bill that weakens the very meaning of Canadian citizenship.

If the government refuses to accept amendments that protect the integrity of our laws and the value of our citizenship, then we have no choice but to oppose this legislation. Canadians deserve better. They expect their lawmakers to defend the value of being Canadian. Canadian citizenship must remain something to strive for, to earn and to cherish, not something to inherit without connection or without commitment. We will fight for that. We will defend that, because we believe in Canada.

I believe in Canada and the value of being Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member a hypothetical, but real, type of situation in which Nancy, who is in the Canadian Forces, goes abroad to Europe, has a child and then returns to Canada. Then, her child, for employment opportunities, goes back to Europe. The child that she might have would then be Nancy's grandchild. Should Nancy's grandchild be entitled to have Canadian citizenship?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that actually solidifies what I am talking about, in that what the member just said is so complicated. Does she deserve citizenship? She could, but I am going to have to write that down on paper and make sure. Does her grandchild's grandchild deserve citizenship? I would like to ask the member that, because this is so complicated and has not been debated properly in committee. We need to look at this clearly, and we need to make sure it is fair.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hypothetical case that was just raised illustrates exactly what Bill C-3 aims to regulate. A court has ruled on a similar case. A couple working in the public service had a child in Switzerland. They said that if their child were then to have a child abroad while working in an embassy or elsewhere, that child would not have Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 seeks to address that.

Citizenship must not be cheapened or devalued. Yes, we do need a complete overhaul of all operations and deficiencies at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. All of that is important. However, I really feel like we are living on two different planets. My reading of the bill is that it applies to those cases, children and so-called lost citizens. It is about making sure they get Canadian citizenship, and that is all.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to help the lost Canadians, and we need to make sure that the wrongs done in the past are corrected, but does somebody's grandchild's grandchild's grandchild deserve to be a citizen if they have never lived in Canada and have never had anything to do with Canada?

We are going to have to make sure that for those immigrants who became citizens in the past, who worked so hard to do that and have become an important part of our communities and of our country, this does not devalue how hard they have worked for Canadian citizenship.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the question from the member for Winnipeg North, because he acknowledged that, even in a hypothetical scenario, the economic situation is so dire that a Canadian needs to go overseas to find employment.

I have a question for my colleague, who I think exemplifies what it means to become a Canadian when one is born elsewhere, to love this country and to adopt this country as one's own. How does she feel, as someone who does not have Canada as her birth nation, about what it means to immigrants who build a life here and become Canadians, to have that citizenship devalued by legislation like this?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the value of Canadian citizenship is beyond what we are speaking about here. If we look at how many people have given their blood and toil to gain this citizenship, we know that it cannot be passed to somebody who has not had any tie to this country at all, or whose family for generations has not had ties.

Again, I look forward to our parties working together in committee to make sure that we really hone down on the rules for citizenship and make sure that it is fair to all citizens of Canada.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House as the member entrusted to represent the good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies in beautiful British Columbia.

It is important for all members to bear in mind that we, as members of the House, have a duty because our fellow Canadians, the constituents we represent, trusted us to be their voice in this place. Canadians look to us, to Parliament, to deliver good work and solutions. There is no shortage of crises facing Canadians today. We must be seized with our collective duty to deliver timely and efficient legislation to move our nation away from the crises we face. Let us never forget why we are here in this place; we are here to represent the good people who elected us.

It is good to be back in the chamber after a summer of meetings and conversations with the good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. There were many conversations about the issues that are important to the people at home, and I look forward to voicing their concerns here. Constituents shared their concerns with me, concerns about the increasing cost of living, housing shortages, rising joblessness and crime on our streets. These conversations and discussions are valuable to me as an elected representative, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my sentiment, because we as legislators have a duty to address these issues and make good laws for all Canadians.

Today we are debating government Bill C-3, which seeks to amend the Citizenship Act. It goes without saying that Canadian citizenship is valuable. For citizens, Canadian citizenship bestows the fundamental rights of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights that preceded it.

The Government of Canada carries significant responsibilities for its citizens. Whether or not the government of the day is fulfilling its responsibilities is an essential and big question. However, we are here now to examine Bill C-3, not the ongoing failures of the government. That said, the value of citizenship may be directly devalued by governments that fail to deliver sound policy and actions that uphold the fundamental rights of citizens and deliver core functions of the federal government. These are not small responsibilities; to the contrary, they are profound, which is why any legislation dealing with Canadian citizenship must strike the precise balance.

The bill before us today, Bill C-3, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, with proposals dealing with citizenship by descent, citizenship for adopted children and citizenship for persons known as lost Canadians.

For Canadians watching at home, I must clarify that Bill C-3 is recycled legislation. It is a reiteration of Bill C-71, which was introduced by the Trudeau government in the last Parliament but failed to pass because it did not achieve the support required to become law. Despite the failure of the last bill, here we are, examining the same bill. Rather than listening to the concerns raised by members of the House, elected by Canadian citizens, the government has wilfully chosen to bring the same flawed bill back again.

The government has not changed; only the deck chairs have changed. It seems that either the government was not listening when the proposals were debated in the 44th Parliament, or it now does not care that members raised concerns and objections to those proposals. It is certainly a curious scene when a government speaks a great deal about collaboration and consensus building and then hits replay on a piece of legislation without including amendments or responding to the concerns and objections already raised by elected members.

I hope my colleagues across the way are truthful when they speak of collaboration and working together. I look forward to working with them and supporting amendments the Conservatives will likely provide so the legislation can hit the precise balance I mentioned earlier. Canadians deserve no less from their Parliament. I hope members across the way will join us in fulfilling our duties to Canadians.

Bill C-3, in its current form, seeks to establish Canadian citizenship by descent; Conservatives do not support this part of the bill. The legislation seeks to automatically extend Canadian citizenship to unlimited generations born abroad with only minimal connection to Canada.

Prior to 2009, Canadian citizens could pass on their citizenship for two generations born outside Canada; after 2009, it was changed to one generation and the first-generation rule was introduced to limit the extension of Canadian citizenship. Under the 2009 rule, a Canadian citizen born outside Canada could pass their citizenship to their child born outside Canada for one generation, but descendants of the next generation born outside Canada were not automatically extended citizenship. That was called the first-generation rule. Bill C-3 that we are debating today would effectively abolish that rule and replace it with a rule allowing citizenship to be extended to generation after generation born abroad, endlessly, over and over.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has sent the first-generation rule back to Parliament to be reworked. The court also concluded that it was reasonable to apply a substantial connection test for extension of citizenship, and this is an important question for Parliament to answer as we examine and potentially amend the bill. The only test that the bill proposes for the endless extension of Canadian citizenship to persons born abroad is that they spend 1,095 days, which is three years, in Canada. These are nonconsecutive days, I might add. I believe all members agree there is a problem that requires a solution, but the current proposals in the bill must be amended. I am sure my Conservative colleagues will have amendments prepared for committee examination of the bill if it gets to committee. Conservatives will be ready to work collaboratively to balance the bill at committee, and I hope all other sides will likewise co-operate to improve the legislation and provide an appropriate solution for the problem that must be resolved.

The second provision of the bill deals with citizenship for children adopted from abroad by Canadian citizens. The bill proposes to extend citizenship to children adopted from abroad by Canadian citizens once the adoption is finalized. This proposal makes sense, and it strikes the right balance when considering who should be eligible for Canadian citizenship.

The third proposal of the bill relates to restoring citizenship for persons born in the late 1970s or early 1980s who were unintentionally prevented from applying for citizenship after the age of 28. Conservatives recognize the need for this situation to be remedied. That is why my Conservative colleague, Senator Yonah Martin, brought this very proposal forward in Bill S-245 in the previous Parliament. This measure should have passed two years ago, and I certainly hope colleagues across the way will walk the talk of collaboration to finally get this important measure finalized.

In closing, we must work to improve the bill, which must be balanced because citizenship by descent for endless generations is simply not sustainable, nor is it appropriate. Great damage has been inflicted on the Canadian immigration system over the past decade; this has shaken the trust that Canadians used to place in Canada's immigration and citizenship system. This damage was caused by policies that were unbalanced and reckless. Let us work together to start restoring an immigration system that works and conserves the value of being a Canadian citizen. Canadians deserve no less.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we have heard long speeches today on this bill, and as I mentioned earlier, this is not the first time that we have had to deal with this bill. Also, the opposition made a promise to lost Canadians who came here to Parliament, to our committee. The Speaker was a member of that committee and promised to make sure we would not leave any Canadians behind.

What does the member opposite have to say to those Canadians you spoke to, Mr. Speaker, and promised you would not leave behind?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are not talking about leaving any Canadian citizens behind. We are concerned about who is going to become a Canadian citizen. We are not talking about leaving any Canadian citizens behind.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague come up with an amendment to make that proposal acceptable and in line with the court's decision?

Under the current legislation, if diplomats have a child abroad and that child also has a child abroad while working as a diplomat, the grandchild will lose their Canadian citizenship. The court is telling us to fix this. The government is proposing something. In my opinion, this is a routine issue that needs to be corrected.

What legislative wording could be proposed to resolve this without causing the problems my colleague raised?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to my colleagues on the citizenship and immigration committee to make those specific amendments. What we see is a bill that has no limits. This goes on for generation after generation after generation with no significant tie to Canada.

I think of my grandparents. My grandfather Jesse Pullin fought in the First World War for England. He immigrated to Canada in 1925, became a Canadian citizen and went back and served for Canada in the Second World War. He fought for Canada. He fought for his citizenship and the right to live in a democratic society. We cannot diminish the value of citizenship that people like my grandfather instilled upon this country.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back. I am thankful for the opportunity to ask a question to my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

I recall the troubling case of Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi, who was granted citizenship despite alleged ties to ISIS. There was no vetting whatsoever. What confidence does the member have, in this bill or the system itself, that such a major blunder would not occur again?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the past 10 years of governance by the Liberal government have broken the trust Canadians placed in the Canadian immigration system. There are hundreds of non-citizens somewhere in this country who were convicted or are guilty of criminal offences, but the government has lost track of where they are. It has no idea. That is the type of mistrust and mismanagement that the former and now relatively unchanged Liberal government has brought to Canada. We need to find balance, as I said in my speech.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Bill C-3 responds to a court ruling. I will provide a bit of background. In 2009, the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to prohibit passing on citizenship beyond the second generation. On December 19, 2023, the Superior Court of Ontario struck down certain provisions of the Citizenship Act, ruling that they violated the section on mobility rights, which states: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”. The provisions also violated a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard to equality before and under the law and the equal protection and benefit of the law.

The parties challenging the Citizenship Act represented seven families that had been discriminated against by the legislation. The court recognized that the ban introduced in the act was unfair, particularly for women who had to choose between the birthplace of their child and the ability to pass on citizenship. Take the case of the Brooke-Bjorkquist family's child. That child was born in Geneva in 2010 to Mr. Brooke and Ms. Bjorkquist, who were working for the government abroad. Despite the fact that the child was born to two Canadian parents and returned to Canada at age one, the child could not, under the current provisions of the act, follow in their parents' footsteps by working abroad and having a child abroad, because they would not be able to pass on citizenship to their child. That is the problem that was raised in court. This is an absurd situation because the birth of that child in Switzerland is a circumstance due to their parents' work abroad in service of Canada, and practically their entire life has been and should continue to be spent in Canada.

Bill C-3 is an identical copy of Bill C-71 from the 44th Parliament, which did not pass. It is also similar to Bill S-245. In 2023, the court gave the government six months to pass legislation to fix the problems. Despite the deadline having passed, here we go again.

I would like to briefly review certain aspects of the history of Canadian citizenship. It is a relatively recent development in the country's history. When Confederation came about in 1867, Canadians were British subjects. It was not until the first Immigration Act was passed in 1910 that citizenship was first mentioned. It defined Canadians as persons born in Canada, British subjects living in Canada, or immigrants naturalized as Canadians. The objective was to facilitate their passage across borders.

In 1921, the Canadian Nationals Act was passed, defining Canadian nationality for immigration purposes for the first time, but without establishing Canadian nationality status. Other laws were also passed, such as the naturalization acts of 1906 and 1914 that sought to govern naturalization, as their names suggest. It was not until Mackenzie King, who became the first Canadian citizen, introduced the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1947, that Canadian citizenship was finally defined for the first time and granted to women as a matter of right.

However, the 1947 act was not perfect. At the time, citizenship was not considered a guaranteed right, but a discretionary power of Parliament. Many situations, particularly those involving naturalization and citizenship by descent, were covered incompletely or not at all. For example, under this regime, when the responsible parent took the citizenship of another country, their children lost their Canadian citizenship. Other obscure provisions, such as the requirement for Canadian children born abroad to reside in Canada during their 24th year, resulted in many individuals living in Canada not officially having citizenship.

The act was next modernized in 1977, and this iteration attempted to simplify the previous citizenship regime. However, the regime remains unfair for several groups, particularly children born abroad. For example, under the 1977 Citizenship Act, individuals who obtained citizenship by descent had to reiterate their desire to retain their citizenship before the age of 28 or risk having it revoked. Because of this little-known requirement, many individuals living in Canada lost their citizenship without even knowing it.

The government failed to communicate this requirement to its citizens, and it was only when the affected individuals had to prove they were citizens, to apply for a passport, for example, that they discovered that they no longer had Canadian citizenship. Some people had been living in Canada for generations. Their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on had been living in Canada, yet they found themselves stateless. These people continue to experience problems, and Bill C-3 aims to fix some of these issues.

These individuals who lost their citizenship as a result of certain obscure, unfair or discriminatory rules are known as lost Canadians. It is a diverse group, consisting of military spouses, children, soldiers, second-generation children born abroad, children of immigrants, border babies, orphans, indigenous Canadians and Chinese Canadians, to name but a few.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration establishes four categories of lost Canadians. The first is war brides, meaning women who married Canadian soldiers fighting for Canada in World War II and who immigrated to Canada during or after the war to join their Canadian husbands. The second is people who were born abroad to a Canadian parent before the current Citizenship Act came into force in February 1977. The third is people who lost their citizenship between January 1947 and February 1977 because they or a parent acquired the citizenship and nationality of another country. Lastly, there are second- and subsequent-generation Canadians born abroad since the current Citizenship Act came into force in February 1977.

Their plight was brought to the public's attention thanks to Don Chapman, a former United Airlines pilot who found out that he had been stripped of his citizenship when his father emigrated to the United States. By deftly showing that this problem was affecting many Canadians unbeknownst to them, he forced Parliament's hand. Even General Roméo Dallaire was affected by the problem. To address it, Canada adopted a series of legislative reforms in 2005, 2009 and 2015.

Errors and inconsistencies persisted, however, and Bill C-3 seeks to correct them. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill before us. There will be some very important discussions in committee and amendments will be proposed to improve the bill and allay the fears and uncertainty that have been raised in the speeches in the House. For the Bloc Québécois, these are technical adjustments being made in the interest of justice that seek to harmonize the application of laws and to correct injustices committed in the past. To us, it is a matter of principle.

This bill, which I believe is technical in nature and responds to a court ruling, should, in our opinion, have been passed within six months of the ruling. When it comes to citizenship, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in particular, there are still a number of ongoing problems and irregularities that need to be addressed. I cannot describe in parliamentary language how this department functions. It should be thoroughly reviewed and improved.

In each of our constituency offices, we receive numerous calls, emails and requests almost every day from people asking us to speed up the process, deal with lost documents and provide assistance. In most cases, these are heart-wrenching stories. These are people who are living in uncertainty and facing challenges. Our immigration and citizenship legislation needs to be completely overhauled to simplify and clarify the process. The department needs to speed up the process, because in most cases, it is inhumane.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's time and effort in putting on the record a number of situations that have had a fairly profound impact. That is why it is so important that we see some form of the legislation actually pass. If we were to focus, let us say, on this and Bill C-2, a couple of bills, and every member were to speak to the legislation, we would not even be able to bring in the budget until the end of November or beginning of December, or that type of thing. At the end of the day, we need to see this legislation sent to committee.

I wonder if the member opposite could provide his thoughts in terms of the important role that a standing committee of the House can play in terms of improving legislation and advancing it, keeping in mind the superior court's decision.