There are 11 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-3.

The Chair has received submissions asking it to select Motions Nos. 1 and 5, standing in the name of the member for Vancouver East, on the grounds that they could not be presented in committee.

The Chair notes that the member did have the opportunity to submit amendments for the committee's consideration as per the committee's routine motion adopted on June 17, 2025. For this reason, Motions Nos. 1 and 5 will not be selected.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendments at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 11 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 11 to the House.

moved:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 1, be amended:

(a) by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 3 with the following:

“1,095 days before the person’s birth; or”

(b) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 4 with the following:

“1,095 days before the person’s birth.”

moved:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 1, be amended by:

(a) replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 3 with the following:

1,095 days before the person’s birth; or

(b) replacing line 28 on page 4 to line 6 on page 5 with the following:

1,095 days before the person’s birth.

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-3, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting line 30 on page 4 to line 6 on page 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended:

(a) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 7 with the following:

“at least 1,095 days before the person’s adoption; or”

(b) by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 7 with the following:

“at least 1,095 days before the person’s adoption.”

moved:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by:

(a) replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 7 with the following:

at least 1,095 days before the person's adoption; or

(b) by replacing line 38 on page 7 to line 15 on page 8 with the following:

at least 1,095 days before the person’s adoption.

(c) ...

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting line 40 on page 7 to line 15 on page 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 5.1.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-3, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 23 on page 9 with the following:

“6 Paragraph 27(1)‍(j.‍1) of the Act is amended by”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 6.1.

She said: Mr. Speaker, my motions to amend Bill C-3 would restore the bill to its original form. They would rectify the Conservatives' punitive and unconstitutional law that stripped the children of Canadian parents the right to pass on Canadian citizenship to second-generation born-abroad children, separating families, rendering some stateless and creating two classes of Canadians more than a decade ago. They respond to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling that Canada's citizenship laws are unconstitutional. They would restore justice for lost Canadian families.

Canadians who live, work or study abroad and their second-generation born-abroad children should never be treated as lesser citizens.

When Bill C-3 went before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, to say I was disappointed in the amendments from the Conservatives, which were supported by the Bloc, is an understatement. Frankly, I do not understand why the Bloc changed its position. When I was at that committee, I worked closely with the Bloc member. We were in agreement on making these changes. After the election, something happened. I do not know exactly what happened, but the Bloc flipped and supported the Conservative motions.

It is with dismay that I stand here today to move these amendments and make these statements. Many lost Canadian family members contacted me right after the committee, expressing frustration, anger and dismay. I share their views. I have had much to say on this topic in the last 10 years. I have carried this file with me for years. Finally bringing it to the stage where we can ensure that Canada's citizenship laws are charter-compliant was extremely important, and seeing it dismantled the way it was at committee was shocking.

At this point, I think it would be most appropriate to put on the record the words of a lost Canadian family in reaction to the Conservative and Bloc amendments to Bill C-3 at committee. This letter is from a woman named Majda Dabaghi, who represents the sentiments of many lost Canadian families. I have received so many letters and calls from lost Canadian family members about this. Let me put their words on the public record.

Referring to the Conservative and the Bloc members, she said:

Overall, their interventions were framed around immigration anxieties rather than citizenship rights....

A few points stand out:

First, Members of Parliament continue to conflate immigration and citizenship.

When she says “Members of Parliament”, I want to be clear that she is referring to the Conservative and Bloc members of the committee. She continued:

Bill C-3 is not about granting citizenship to newcomers with tenuous ties to Canada; it is about restoring equal rights to Canadians who already have a genuine, demonstrable connection to their country. Canadians who live, study, or work abroad contribute meaningfully to Canada’s global presence, economy, and values. They should be celebrated, not excluded.

Second, the rhetoric around so-called “Canadians of convenience” has been weaponized to justify exclusionary amendments. That narrative is deeply harmful and, frankly, inaccurate. At one point, [the member for Saskatoon West] referred to people like me as “visitors to Canada.” I found that remark profoundly insulting. It deepens the wounds inflicted by the First Generation Rule—a policy that already fractured the identity and sense of belonging of thousands of Canadians abroad.

I am a Canadian. I was raised in Ottawa and Whistler; I have lived and worked in Canada for most of my life. My Canadian identity is not conditional on geography, nor should my children’s right to citizenship depend on political games. The notion that I am somehow less Canadian because I have lived internationally is offensive and contrary to the Charter’s principles of equality and mobility.

The shift away from the cumulative 1,095-day connection test to a consecutive-day requirement is unworkable, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. It disregards the modern realities of family, work, and study, and it directly violates Section 6 of the Charter, which guarantees the right of all Canadian citizens to move, leave, and re-enter Canada freely.

These amendments do not only harm Canadians abroad—they harm all Canadians. They erode the very principle of equal citizenship by creating a hierarchy of rights based on geography and every Canadian’s mobility rights are weakened.

What is most frustrating is the politicking behind these changes. The amendments are being used as a proxy battle over immigration fears rather than a good-faith debate on citizenship equality. The lack of preparation from some MPs and the eagerness to grandstand rather than legislate responsibly are infuriating.

I might add that at committee, officials noted that with these amendments, it is possible that a new class of lost Canadians could be created.

Those are the sentiments of a lost Canadian family. It is a reflection of many lost Canadian families, including those who have been harmed, those who took the government to court and those who were told when they were pregnant and expecting a child during COVID that they were somehow supposed to leave their families, travel back to Canada, find a place to stay and find a new health care team to deliver their child. That is what they were supposed to do during COVID just so they could ensure that their child would have citizenship. How does that make sense? It does not.

Our laws have been discriminatory for more than a decade, ever since the Conservatives, under the Harper regime, stripped lost Canadians of their rights to pass on citizenship to second-generation born-abroad children.

I want to be clear that in bringing these motions forward, there is no deal with the Liberal government. There is no quid pro quo. I do not have any lost Canadian family myself, but I am doing this because it is the right thing to do. It is an important thing to do. It is the Canadian thing to do.

We should all be treated equally. No one should be treated as a second-class citizen. The citizenship rights of those who are lucky enough to be born with citizenship should be celebrated and honoured. There is no question about that. Of course, we should not abuse it. However, we should not penalize the people who travel, work or fall in love abroad, and God forbid they should have children abroad. That is what these amendments would do. Restoring those rights per the court ruling and bringing the bill back to its original form are the right things to do.

I hope we can support these amendments so that we can all stand tall and proud that Canada's citizenship laws will finally be charter-compliant. Let us not conflate immigrants' rights to earn their citizenship with that of Canadians' birthright. Let us not fuel the current atmosphere of anti-immigrant and anti-migrant sentiment that is washing over us from south of the border. We are better than that. Let us not fall prey to that. Conservatives may not believe that, because that is who they are. Maybe that is what it is, but I am not like them and I refuse to let it happen.

I hope all members of this House will support these amendments so that we can stand tall and proud, with our Canadian values intact.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion that the member has expressed on the issue. I know it has been a very important issue for her personally for a good length of time.

We know there have been individuals like Mr. Chapman and many others who have really been fighting for the cause, advocating that we recognize the value of our citizenship and the people who should have citizenship, and they are pleased to see that we now have this bill before us. It is, at the least, a very significant step forward in recognizing and giving citizenship to many people who should have had it long ago.

Could the member provide her thoughts on how important it is that we finally get to a stage where people would be getting their citizenship?

Mr. Speaker, I have been carrying this file for more than a decade.

As I have said, I do not have lost Canadians within my own family unit. My children were born in Canada. I am an immigrant, so I am a first-generation born-abroad individual, but my children were born here, so they are not impacted in any shape or form. However, that does not matter.

What matters is that there are people who are lost Canadians in this context. It is critically important to pass this legislation back to its original form, based on the amendments made to Senate Bill S-245 that I motivated. It is also based on the government bill later introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-71.

Here we are. It is morally and legally the right thing to do, and that is why we have to do it.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor says that the amendments are designed to ostracize immigrants and that they are anti-immigration.

I would therefore like to ask her the following question. Suppose I go abroad and my children are born abroad, if they decide to stay abroad and then have children of their own, will this law also apply to them, or does it only apply to immigrants?

Mr. Speaker, it would apply to second-generation born-abroad children. That is what this is about.

The amendments that the Conservatives and the Bloc supported treat second-generation born-abroad children as though they were immigrants. That is the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for her absolutely brilliant motions today.

One of the concerns I have had is that since the new government took power, I continue to see members' trying to pass bills in the House that would violate human rights and would actually violate the Constitution.

Why are we participating in this dangerous, slippery slope by not upholding our Constitution and the international conventions that Canada has signed on to?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for seconding my motion and for her ongoing advocacy for basic human rights, not just for Canadians but for everyone across the globe. Her relentless, untiring tackling of and fighting for basic human rights for all people is who we are as Canadians.

By the way, the law on lost Canadians' citizenship birthright has been deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court. In fact, the government has been forced to bring this legislation forward. It should have been done years ago, without the court's making the ruling, but the government has not done it, and the court has ruled that the law is unconstitutional.

We have to rectify this. Again, I ask all members of the House to support my amendments.

Mr. Speaker, could the member speak a little more about how important it is for Canadians to be able to travel without putting their offsprings' citizenship at risk?

Mr. Speaker, this is important because Canadians are global citizens. We travel. Canada is a global country, so when people travel, study abroad and work abroad, they should not be penalized for it. That is why we need to fix the legislation right now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I have the honour of speaking today in support of Bill C‑3 and to highlight how it strengthens the legislative framework of Canadian citizenship. Following second reading, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration completed its review of the bill and heard from numerous witnesses.

Many wanted to know exactly how many people will be affected by the coming into force of this legislation. What is the exact number of Canadians who have been stripped of their citizenship? The term “lost Canadians” has generally been used to describe people who have lost or never had Canadian citizenship due to certain obsolete provisions of citizenship legislation.

The majority of cases of Canadians who lost their citizenship have been resolved through amendments to the Citizenship Act in 2009 and 2015. These changes have enabled certain individuals to regain or obtain Canadian citizenship if they had lost it. However, a small group of people and their descendants remain excluded. These are the people that will mainly be affected by Bill C‑3.

The bill also applies to people who are not typically considered lost Canadians, such as those who were born or adopted abroad by Canadian parents who are citizens by descent and who are affected by the first-generation limit, which was implemented in 2009.

One of the main reasons why we do not know the exact number of lost Canadians or citizens by descent is that the government has not kept a registry of births abroad since the enactment of the Citizenship Act in 1977. There is no way of knowing about these births unless the parent contacts Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC.

A Canadian parent can request a citizenship certificate for their child who is born abroad. When a child is adopted abroad, the parent can apply for direct citizenship. This process enables the government to assess eligibility for citizenship on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the child's citizenship is based on that of the parent, not on their place of birth. It is not necessary to register the birth abroad or to declare the parents' country of residence to establish a person's Canadian citizenship.

In short, birth registration is typically the responsibility of the country where the birth takes place. IRCC is only informed of citizenship by descent cases when an application for proof of Canadian citizenship is filed, either by the person concerned or by one of their parents.

To better anticipate future applications, it may be useful to look at the number of past cases. The legislative amendments made in 2009 and 2015, specifically addressing the situation of lost Canadians, allowed more than 20,000 people to contact IRCC to obtain proof of citizenship after their status was corrected. The vast majority of cases have been resolved as a result of these legislative changes.

We know that the department has not seen a significant increase in applications for proof of citizenship as a result of these two sets of legislative amendments. Some citizens lost their status for reasons related to the old rules for retaining citizenship. Typically, an average of 35 to 40 applications a year for restoring citizenship through a discretionary measure are received. However, these have been on a downward trend, and we expect that to continue.

IRCC received about 4,200 applications between January 2024 and July 2025 from people affected by the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent who qualify for the interim measure. These figures suggest that the remaining number of lost Canadians and their descendants is relatively small, probably in the tens of thousands. They are expected to gradually apply as they become aware of their rights.

I would now like to outline the objectives of Bill C‑3. If passed, this bill would automatically grant citizenship to anyone born abroad to a Canadian parent before the legislation's coming into force. It would also apply to people who are currently unable to obtain citizenship by descent because of the first-generation limit, including the remaining lost Canadians and their descendants.

Once the law comes into force, any child born outside the country to a Canadian parent who was themselves born outside the country will be considered a Canadian citizen from birth if the parent in question can prove a substantial connection to Canada, that is, a cumulative physical presence of three years in the country before the child is born.

We cannot predict how many children will be born abroad after this legislation passes. However, as long as the Canadian parent who was born outside the country was physically present in Canada for at least three years before the child's birth, they can pass their citizenship on to the child.

Some members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration raised important questions about foreign adoptions. As much as possible, the government wants to continue to treat children adopted abroad and those born abroad in the same way, while following clear rules regarding how parents pass on their citizenship.

Any child adopted abroad by a Canadian parent before the new law came into effect would now be eligible for direct citizenship, even if they had previously been excluded due to the first-generation limit on Canadian citizenship by descent. The committee analyzed these measures carefully. At this stage, the bill remains the most equitable and practical solution.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that key provisions of the first-generation limit are unconstitutional. It has suspended its decision until November 20, 2025, to give Parliament time to create a new framework. If the bill is not passed by that date, Canadian citizenship could be granted indefinitely to future generations born outside Canada, with no time limit and no requirement for a meaningful connection to the country.

However, certain groups will continue to be disadvantaged by the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent. Many of them will not become citizens or will not have access to citizenship because the order will be imposed before Bill C-3 comes into force. This includes people adopted abroad by Canadian parents beyond the first generation, lost Canadians under section 8 who lost their citizenship status as a result of the age 28 rule, and certain individuals born abroad prior to April 1, 1949.

This scenario would create legal uncertainties for families and complicate the application of the Citizenship Act. That is why it is crucial that we pass Bill C‑3 quickly.

I hope these explanations will provide some clarity around Bill C‑3 and pave the way for it to pass so that the remaining lost Canadians can have their citizenship restored, so that access to citizenship by descent beyond the first generation is expanded in a clear and inclusive manner, and so that we avoid creating more lost Canadians in the future.

Passing this bill will allow Canada to take a decisive step forward with respect to lost Canadians and to strengthen the integrity of our citizenship framework for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Liberals are about to remove an amendment the committee made to include a language requirement in the bill.

Language is a unifier in Canada, and the Conservatives worked with the Bloc Québécois to ensure that somebody who would be receiving citizenship through this chain migration bill would at least have to pass a language test that is similar to the one for somebody who is receiving citizenship through naturalization.

Why would the Liberals table an amendment that would create a two-tiered citizenship class, one that denigrates Canada's language rights as they relate to citizenship acquisition?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her great question.

Canada has two official languages, and we want to protect them. However, this is about fixing a problem caused by a framework. We need to give these citizens the right to their citizenship through legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Terrebonne, for her eloquence and, of course, for her presentation. My question concerns the substantial connection test for members of the second generation.

Why is this test necessary for members of the second generation born after the legislation comes into force, but not for those born before it comes into force?

Mr. Speaker, moving forward, this legislation will ensure that the opportunity to pass on citizenship is subject to reasonable limits.

Prescriptive application of the substantial connection test is meant to strike a balance between setting reasonable limits on citizenship by descent, in order to preserve the right to and privilege of Canadian citizenship, and ensuring the flexibility and inclusivity needed to address the cases of individuals previously excluded from citizenship by descent based on the first-generation limit.

Mr. Speaker, in the amendments that were voted on in committee, there is this notion of righting wrongs as well as setting guidelines and ensuring that people who become Canadians continue to maintain a genuine connection to their new country.

Can my colleague discuss another key amendment, which provides for the publication of an annual report to determine the impact of this legislation?

My colleague referred to a few thousand people but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there would be up to 150,000 new citizens within the first five years. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to understand the impact of the laws that we pass.

Why is my colleague moving an amendment today that ultimately goes against transparency and accountability?

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, this bill is about transparency. The majority of cases of lost Canadians were resolved through legislative amendments. Between 2019 and 2023, we received an average of 48,000 applications for certificates and proof of citizenship. About 80% of these applications came from people born abroad. We will follow up on those applications for citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, this was court ordered. Why is it dangerous for parliamentarians to not only not uphold court orders, but also do it in a manner that violates our Constitution, which is, in fact, the rule of law?

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Bill C‑3 was introduced in response to this request from the court and seeks to create a framework in which IRCC will be able to proceed in a fair and inclusive manner.

Mr. Speaker, what a mess. What we are dealing with today is an abject mess. I have to explain to the people who might be watching what has happened and what we are dealing with today.

The Liberals had a court ruling. There was a court ruling at a lower court that said the first-generation limit of citizenship by descent could go on indefinitely. The previous Conservative government had put in place a rule that said that, if somebody is going to pass down their citizenship to a child born abroad, they could only do that for one generation, and that somebody who obtains citizenship by descent has to have a substantive connection to Canada. This was done in the late aughts to prevent something called citizenship of convenience, as we saw cases in the 2000s where Canada was called on to evacuate people who had never paid taxes and who had Canadian citizenship, but who had never really been in Canada. They had acquired citizenship through descent. When Canada evacuated some of these people, most of them just went back. That is why the first-generation limit was put in place. Rather than challenge the court ruling, the Liberals said, “Yeah, okay, we'll just agree with the court”.

I cannot believe this, but one of my colleagues asked why the government would challenge a court ruling. Why would we do that? It is because Parliament is supreme. In fact, the correct answer from the government on that, which I cannot believe members did not know, is that, per section 91(25) of the Constitution Act, Parliament has the authority to amend the Citizenship Act to impose new restrictions on how citizenship is acquired in our country.

Why does Parliament have the right to do that? Why does Parliament have the imperative to do that? It is because Canadian citizenship has value. It should not be appointed judges who can do that. It should not be anybody other than duly elected representatives talking about what restrictions we place on how somebody obtains Canadian citizenship. That is why we have the Citizenship Act. There are limits and rules for how people can acquire Canadian citizenship.

About a decade ago, the Liberals came into power. A lot of the far left principles that we see in the NDP espouse something called postnationalism. This is an ideological belief. The former prime minister actually said there is no national identity in Canada. There is no national identity. There is now a minister of national identity in the Liberal Party who said there is not one way to be Canadian. Then the new Prime Minister, during the election campaign, when asked what it means to be Canadian, said it is to be not American.

We are at a juncture in the country right now. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. This should concern all parliamentarians. The social fabric of our country is breaking down because of a decade of what we have seen from federal leaders in this country. It is that concept of postnationalism, where there is no national identity, there is no value to our citizenship and we can just eliminate first-generation rules to allow people to obtain citizenship by descent in a way that is easier than it is for people who have naturalized to this country.

This is why Conservatives worked with the Bloc Québécois to amend this disastrous chain migration bill at committee. Conservatives put forward some very common-sense amendments to try to ensure that people who are obtaining citizenship by descent through this chain migration bill would have to go through the same processes as somebody who is obtaining citizenship through naturalization, so that at the very least, we are not creating a two-tier citizenship acquisition system in this country.

I want to thank my Bloc colleagues for working with us and passing these amendments. The amendments we put forward were very common sense. We sought to harmonize the residency requirements that somebody has to have to obtain citizenship through naturalization with citizenship by descent, so they have to live here at least three out of five years to have the provisions in this bill apply to their descendants. That seems reasonable to me. It is a reasonable amendment.

The second thing Conservatives did was amend the bill to have a language acquisition requirement, the same language acquisition requirement that is there for people who want to obtain citizenship through naturalization. It is the exact wording that is already in the Citizenship Act. We said this is reasonable. Why is it reasonable? It is because language is a unifier, and language is part of our national identity.

There are two official languages in Canada. They are very important to what it means to be Canadian. They are integral and core, especially in Quebec and other parts of the country where there is a whole concept of national identity that is firmly entrenched and attached to language. We made that amendment. It is common sense. It is the same that is already in the Citizenship Act.

We also said maybe somebody should have to take a citizenship test. It is the same requirement of somebody who wants to naturalize to Canada to take a citizenship test. They have to read the citizenship guide and have a basic understanding of what Canada is and what our rules are. Our national identity needs to be rooted in the fact that we all have a duty for not just the privileges associated with citizenship but also the responsibilities. These are things taken right from the citizenship guide. For example, there is a requirement to abandon violent and extreme ideology upon coming to Canada. Anybody who is or wants to be Canadian must abandon violent and extreme ideology. It is right in the citizenship guide. Conservatives amended the legislation to have a citizenship test. This is the same as it is for somebody who wants to obtain citizenship through naturalization.

As my Bloc colleague raised in a question earlier, Conservatives wanted a report to Parliament on how many people have been given citizenship by descent because of the fact that the Liberals did not challenge this ruling. They could have challenged this ruling, but they chose not to. They chose unlimited citizenship by descent with residency requirements that are weaker than what people who naturalize to this country have.

The reason I am so fired up is that I have watched, through a decade of Liberal postnationalism, which they have not just said but have also operationalized, the eroding of our democratic institutions. We have seen their catch-and-release bail policies over the last year and the crime that has wrought on our streets. It is the erosion of the justice system. We have seen the censorship bills they have put in place and the erosion of free speech. While we might not agree on certain types of policy or how to get to certain types of outcomes, if those democratic institutions are eroded through a postnational ideology, and we tell the world that our citizenship does not have value by gutting a common-sense amendment like this, it would further erode the social fabric of our country.

What is the outcome of that? It would erode Canada's pluralism. The only way that pluralism and multiculturalism can exist is through a democracy that has strong respect for the rule of law, for institutions such as freedom of speech and unifying things such as language. Mark my words, the Liberals continuing their far left postnationalism by gutting common-sense amendments on things like language requirements will only further degrade Canada's pluralism.

We are at a moment in history when we have to start restoring the value of Canadian citizenship, not further degrading it. I beg colleagues to ensure the amendments that were passed in a multipartisan way at committee are kept so that we can keep the value of Canadian citizenship and reverse the decade of damage that the far left Liberal postnational ideology has done to the value of Canadian citizenship and our pride in national identity.

Mr. Speaker, the member said that Parliament is supreme and we should, therefore, ignore the ruling of the court. I would suggest to her that, rather, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is supreme, and it is the role of the court to advise parliamentarians when our laws exceed the capacity of the charter.

I would ask the member to please comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals rolled over on the court ruling. They said that Parliament should not have a debate on this. They allowed the first-generation limit to be eliminated by a lower court.

Parliament is supreme. I cited the part of our laws through which we have the right to determine what Canadian citizenship is, and the Liberals took that debate away from us. They had to extend the limit on the court ruling because they had screwed it up so badly that they did not have anything in place to prevent unlimited citizenship by descent. It is preposterous.

If the Liberals think that the court ruling should not be challenged, then why are we here? Why do we not just give everything to the judges? I say no.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, today's debate raises important questions about democracy. What role do judges play and what role do legislators play? The judge said it was discriminatory and told legislators to do their job and determine what the real connection is between a Canadian born abroad and his or her country. A guideline has been proposed, a reasonable limit that mirrors the immigration system. That is the job of legislators. It is not up to judges to decide everything, because otherwise we would have a government of judges, and that is not what we want.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about the state of our parliamentary democracy if everything that is decided in committee is overturned when the report is presented to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot wrap my brain around what is happening. We had members of Parliament stand up in here today and say that we should never, as a Parliament, exercise the authority our constituents have given to us when a court has ruled on something. We have the power to make legislation. We have the power in our charter to overturn court rulings.

The Liberals made a deliberate choice not to challenge legislation that speaks to the value of Canadian citizenship and how something so precious can be applied. They essentially eliminated rules for that. That is bananas. It is antithetical to the principle of parliamentary supremacy.

I am so proud to stand here and say that Canadian citizenship has value and that it is worth having this debate in the House of Commons. I believe there should be a language requirement; I believe there should be security checks, and I believe there should be a citizenship test. Anybody who does not believe this needs to give their head a shake.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for the passion and knowledge she brings to this debate. My question is, why? There is so much value to Canadian citizenship that is recognized around the world. Why does the government want to cheapen it?

Mr. Speaker, over the last decade we have heard a lot about what Canada can give to the world. We had the citizenship and immigration department tweet last week that Canada is essentially the walk-in clinic for the world.

It is about time this place started talking about what the responsibilities are of being a citizen as well, such as respect for the rule of law and upholding freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to worship without persecution or fear. Those things are under threat right now, and it is because of 10 years of the Liberal government erasing our national symbols and saying that in order for us to move forward, we have to constantly wallow in the past.

I am not saying there are not things we should be correcting, but if we are not talking about the responsibilities associated with citizenship, our pluralism will not survive.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here is that the Conservatives, more than a decade ago, brought in a law that is in violation of the charter. I know the member is a feminist, and this violation hits women the most. That is what the court found.

If we stand with women and their rights, why would we not ensure these amendments are passed?

Mr. Speaker, why? It is because the member opposite is so radically far left and so postnational that she believes people who get citizenship by descent should not have to take a citizenship test, which includes such things as that female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice or that people need to reject violent and extreme ideology.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner: Mr. Speaker, they are heckling at me for the—

Order, please.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This bill responds to a court ruling.

Let us take a look at the historical background. In 2009, the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to prohibit the transmission of citizenship beyond the second generation for children born outside Canada, even if their parents are Canadian. In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down provisions of this law on the grounds that they violated section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which deals with mobility rights and states that every citizen has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada, as well as section 15 of the charter, which deals with equality rights. The parties challenging the law represented seven families that were discriminated against by this law, and the court recognized that the ban introduced in this law was unfair, especially for those who were forced to choose between the birthplace of their child and the transmission of citizenship.

The case of the Brooke-Bjorkquist family illustrates the problem perfectly. A child was born in Geneva in 2010 to Canadian parents who were working for the government abroad. Despite the fact that this child was born to two Canadian parents and she returned to Canada at the age of one, she would not be able to follow in her parents' footsteps under the provisions of the act. She would not be able to choose to work abroad at some point in her career and give birth to a child abroad, because her child would not be able to obtain Canadian citizenship. That is ridiculous because the child was only born in Switzerland because of circumstances related to her parents' work and she spent most of her life in Canada.

The bill seeks to correct this type of injustice, which is why the Bloc Québécois supported it at second reading. Today, this bill has been sent back to the House from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for report stage consideration. At this point, we must ask ourselves a very simple question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees?

After reviewing 26 briefs, hearing from 14 witnesses, holding two meetings and conducting four hours of work, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is sending the bill back to us with nine amendments. These nine amendments were adopted by a majority of committee members. What is the purpose of parliamentary committees in the context of a minority government like the one we have now? Are they a necessary but futile step, at the end of which the House overturns all the amendments that the parliamentary committee adopted by a majority vote? Alternatively, are committees a place where the will of the people can be expressed by representatives of recognized opposition parties?

I would remind members that, in April, the people elected more opposition members than government members. Were they sending a message? Did the people not give power to one party while asking that the other parties be more involved in law-making? I think so.

Yvon Pinard, the then president of the Privy Council, said the following about committees on November 29, 1982, and I quote: “Experience has shown that smaller and more flexible committees, when entrusted with interesting matters, can have a very positive impact on the development of our parliamentary system, upgrade the role of Members of Parliament, sharpen their interest and ultimately enable this institution [or committees] to produce much more enlightened measures that better meet the wishes of the Canadian people.” I think the last part of that statement is the most relevant part.

The bill as improved by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is a bill that contains more informed measures and, in our opinion, better reflects the wishes of the public. However, the government now wants to revisit the work that has been done and undo the improvements made in committee. It should be noted that the amendments now being proposed in the House come from the government, but also from a member of a non-recognized party.

It could be argued that, although that party is not recognized, its members should still be involved in the law-making process. That is difficult to dispute. The real question is, how involved can they be? Can they go so far as to erase almost all the work done in committee, to the point of setting aside the votes cast in committee by representatives of recognized parties? This seems to be at odds with the message sent by voters, who wanted to give more power to opposition parties.

There seems to be a risk that, at the end of the process, we will ask ourselves the same question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees in the current Parliament?

The Bloc Québécois asks that the work done by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be respected. We ask this because we believe it is a matter of parliamentary democracy and respect for the will of the voters, but also, in our opinion, because the amendments adopted in committee improve the bill amending citizenship.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-3 as amended by the committee. The bill was amended so that the requirements for passing on citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad would align in every way with the requirements applied to naturalized citizens going through the immigration process. Bill C-3 proposed that citizenship be granted to children if one parent had spent at least 1,095 days in the country, the equivalent of about three years, over an indeterminate period prior to the child's birth. The Bloc Québécois supported an amendment to include this 1,095-day requirement, but over a five-year period instead, to match the requirement for people seeking citizenship through the immigration process. This amendment corrects injustices and ensures that new Canadians have a real and substantial connection to their new country, not a tenuous one.

Furthermore, we also supported an amendment to require citizenship applicants over the age of 18 to meet additional requirements. Like naturalized citizens, they would have to pass a language test, pass a knowledge and citizenship test and undergo a security assessment.

Another amendment adopted in committee establishes some degree of accountability by requiring that a report be tabled in Parliament containing the annual statistics on the number of citizenships granted under the new law. It is important to know what kind of impact this new legislation is having. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the new rules could result in 150,000 new Canadian citizens over the next five years. That is more than the entire population of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, and more than the vast majority of ridings in the House. That is a significant number of people. I think it is important to understand what effect this new legislation will have.

We believe that these amendments respond to the court's ruling calling on us to determine what constitutes a real connection to Canada. By aligning the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad with those for individuals seeking citizenship through immigration, we are ensuring a level playing field for everyone.

However, the amendments that the government and the member from an unrecognized party are now proposing to the House seek to restore the amended clauses to their original form, except for the three requirements regarding security assessments, the French language and citizenship tests for people aged 18 to 55. At least that is something.

Apart from those three things, the amendments introduced by the government seek to overturn the work of the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The government's intent is to restore the bill to the way it was before it was studied in committee, reinstating the requirement that one of the parents must have been present for 1,095 days over an indefinite period, rather than within the five years preceding the birth of the child, in order for the child to obtain Canadian citizenship by birth. In our opinion, it is reasonable to require the parent to have been present in Canada for about three of the five years before the birth.

The amendment also removes the requirement to table an annual report in Parliament on the number of citizens who have benefited from the law in order to obtain citizenship. Why oppose a transparency measure? Why refuse to learn what effect this new law will have on the number of Canadian citizens? I do not understand this.

That is why we will vote against the amendments proposed by the government and the member at report stage and support the version of the bill as amended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. These amendments remove important safeguards that were added in committee by a majority vote in order to avoid a situation where, in righting wrongs, we leave the door too wide open, causing citizenship to lose its value.