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.