Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

CIMM – Legislative Summaries – October 2, 2025

Dear Colleagues,

On June 5, 2025, Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) was introduced and read for a first time in the House of Commons.

Today, the Bill was debated at Second Reading. A summary of the debate can be found below.

Summary Report

Thursday June 19, 2025
Bill C-3, An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act (2025)
Rebecca Pryce, Parliamentary Affairs

Key Takeaways

Summary of Remarks

Liberal Party of Canada

The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship delivered opening remarks in which she described the key elements of Bill C-3, which remedies a number of injustices that cause some Canadians to lose, or never have, their citizenship due to being born abroad. She concluded by explaining the urgency of moving this legislation along due to the court ruling, and noting the cross-party support for the bill.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Anju Dhillon spoke to the transformative power of Canadian citizenship and the importance of this bill. She described the benefits of Canadian citizenship, such as the right to vote, access to a Canadian passport, eligibility for government jobs, and the ability to sponsor family members for immigration. She noted C-3 is important for descendants to be able to get citizenship past the first generation limitation.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Yasir Naqvi described how this bill is relevant to him, being a new Canadian Citizen himself. He explained how this bill is fixing the issues created by the Harper government.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Arielle Kayabaga held the former Conservative government responsible for the current two-tiered citizenship system created by the first-generation limit. She emphasized the importance of Canadian citizenship and the important impact of this bill on ensuring citizenship rights for those who have served Canada overseas, including in the military and diplomatic corps.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Caroline Desrochers voiced her support for Bill C-3, highlighting the inclusive and diverse spirit of Canadian citizenship. She noted the bill would make it so all children born or adopted outside of Canada to a Canadian parent, will be treated the same way as Canadian citizens.

Questions and answers of note:

Conservative Party of Canada

MP Michelle Rempel Garner highlighted that the LPC does not know how many people will be affected by this bill over time. She attacked the Immigration Minister and her incompetence in the role, and said she should have put forward a more pointed bill to deal with the Court ruling. She then explained how this bill has become a chain migration bill with no clear number of people it could impact, due to the lack a clear consecutive requirement to have a substantial connection to Canada to receive citizenship. She claimed the LPC wants to devalue Canadian citizenship.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Brad Redekopp explained that the CPC is concerned with the number of people being affected by this legislation, noting that this will impact processing backlogs and will have an unknown financial impact. He explained that the CPC would like changes to the substantial connection test and would like criminal record checks to be required before citizenship is granted. He stated the CPC will be opposing the bill unless there are a number of amendments.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Melissa Lantsman stated that she, along with municipal leaders, provincial premiers, and non-partisan civil servants, believes 100,000 new citizens is too many. She said the substantial connections test is weak due to being non-consecutive and not enough time, and noted the need for security screenings and criminal checks for new citizens. She asked how the bill would impact the immigration backlog, and the financial cost of processing Lost Canadians. The Member advocated for a bill more closely aligned with Bill S-245, and accused Bill C-3 of devaluing citizenship.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Eric Duncan explained the CPC agree with several components of Bill C-3, but have serious concerns about others. He said the government should have appealed the Superior Court’s decision instead of readily committing to changing the law. MP Duncan agreed with the bill’s intent to grant Lost Canadians citizenship, and was supportive of adoption provisions in the legislation. However, he expressed strong opposition to granting citizenship by descent to “countless” successive generations, and argued the implications for government finances and immigration numbers as a result of this measure remain unclear. He also contended the government should release an assessment on the potential impacts of the legislation, that the bill should require criminal background checks for new citizens, and that the substantial connection test in the legislation is too weak.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Greg McClean framed Bill C-3 as a repeat of errors he believes were made in Bill-71. He said Lost Canadians should be granted citizenship, but only through a bill with a narrow scope. By contrast, he argued Bill C-3 is far too broad and risks upending the immigration system. MP McClean argued against granting citizenship to successive generations by descent and held the substantial connection test should only be satisfied by consecutive days in Canada. He compared the bill’s proposed measures unfavourably with those in other countries. MP McClean’s overall concern was that Bill C-3 would dilute the value of Canadian citizenship, and grant it to those with minimal ties to the country.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Vincent Neil Ho accused Bill C-3 of devaluing citizenship by offering automatic citizenship to people who have never visited Canada, paid taxes, or even expressed desire to come to Canada. He noted many legal immigrants to Canada are still awaiting citizenship due to bureaucratic red tape and backlogs. He criticized the bill for eliminating the first-generation limit, including a weak substantial connections test, and not including security screening.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Costas Menegakis accused Bill C-3 of weakening citizenship by eliminating the first-generation limit and allowing citizenship to be passed down to countless generations. He criticized the government for not performing a cost analysis on the bill and not knowing the number of people who will be affected or the financial implications. He noted the PBO has estimated Bill C-3 will affect at least 115,000 people and will cost Canadians $21 million. He also critiqued the bill for not including criminal record checks. He applauded the bill for resolving the issues faced by Lost Canadians and improving the process for internationally-adopted children.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Michael Ma spoke on the importance of preserving the value of Canadian citizenship and expressed concerns that Bill C-3 would allow “Canadians of convenience” who have not spent a significant amount of time and Canada or passed criminal record checks. He said the problem to be addressed is Lost Canadians, and there needs to be legislation tailored to this, not making sweeping changes to the Canadian citizenship system. He said it is unfair to give citizenship to people who have never even lived in Canada when there are immigrants who have spent years building lives in Canada.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Tamara Kronis stated the CPC supports the decision of the Ontario Superior Court and believes in the rule of law, and that unjustifiable discrimination has no place in Canadian citizenship policy. She agreed with the judgement that the first-generation limit is unconstitutional, but argued Bill C-3 is a re-write of citizenship policy that goes far beyond the scope of the Court ruling. She criticized the bill for not requiring a strong connection to Canada or requiring criminal record checks and criticized the government for not knowing the number of people who would be impacted by the bill or the financial implications. She said Conservatives would propose amendments to make the 1,095 day substantial connection test be consecutive days, and to disqualify those with serious criminal records.

Bloc Québécois

MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (BQ) noted that this bill incorporates all the amendments put forward for Bill C-71. He stated his hope that this is the last time Second Reading is debated and that this bill moves on to the committee stage quickly. He confirmed that the BQ is in favour of the bill. He called out the political games being played by the other parties, stating “people deserve to have their status and dignity restored.” He concluded by asking his colleagues in the House to not filibuster and to get this passed in a reasonable amount of time.

Questions and answers of note:

Dear Colleagues,

On June 5, 2025, Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) was introduced and read for a first time in the House of Commons.

Second reading debate on the bill began on June 19, 2025, and continued today. A summary of the debate can be found below.

Summary Report

Monday, September 15, 2025
Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)
Rebecca Pryce, Parliamentary Affairs

Key Takeaways

Summary of Remarks

Liberal Party of Canada

MP Peter Fragiskatos, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, argued that Opposition members were politicizing immigration but said he hoped this trend would not continue. He emphasized the importance of citizenship rights and said Bill C-3 seeks to correct a two-tiered citizenship system that has created Lost Canadians. MP Fragiskatos said the substantial connection test mirrors the test that permanent residents must satisfy and is therefore based on existing practice. He pointed to the court’s November deadline and highlighted the importance of Parliament working together to pass this legislation.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault explained that if Bill C-3 is not passed before the court’s deadline, there would be no limits on citizenship by descent. He said Bill C-3 aims to strike a balance for this process.

Questions and answers of note:

Conservative Party of Canada

MP Rosemarie Falk said Bill C-3 risks devaluing Canadian citizenship. She supported granting citizenship to children adopted abroad but argued that removing the first-generation limit opens the door to “Canadians of convenience” and creates a pathway for unlimited multigenerational individuals with no meaningful connections to Canada to claim citizenship. She said the CPC cannot support Bill C-3 unless significant amendments are made and highlighted concerns about the number of people affected, potential financial burden, and the risk the citizenship program could be abused.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Warren Steinley questioned the impacts Bill C-3 would have on Canada if it passes, including how many people may come to Canada and the pressure this could place on housing and health care. He asked whether the government consulted provinces and territories and voiced concern about the need for criminal record checks and language requirements.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Kelly Block stated that Canadian citizenship requires an ongoing connection to Canada and argued that Bill C-3 seeks to share citizenship with people who do not want to work to deserve it. She cited a Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) estimate that over 100,000 people could be granted citizenship over the next five years and said this would add pressure to an already strained health care system and economy. She noted existing backlogs for citizenship applications and said adding more applicants would exacerbate the problem. She criticized Bill C-3 for not requiring background checks and stated the CPC supports positive changes that correct issues in current legislation but cannot support the bill in its current form.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Fred Davies voiced support for the changes related to children adopted abroad and restoring citizenship for Lost Canadians. He shared concerns that the proposed changes allowing multigenerational citizenship for citizens living abroad would permit individuals who have never truly lived in Canada to enjoy all benefits of citizenship, which he said diminishes the value of Canadian citizenship and makes Bill C-3 bad legislation. He also expressed doubt that the government would be able to verify substantial connection tests.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Ted Falk said citizenship must be defended and not handed out without limits, and argued Bill C-3 undermines that principle. He raised concerns about unknown numbers and costs associated with implementing Bill C-3, argued that approaching the court deadline should not force Parliament to pass bad policy, and said the bill should have maintained a targeted approach like Bill S-245. He mentioned a PBO projection that 150,000 new Canadian citizens could immediately be added at a processing cost of about $21 million (processing only) and said the impacts on health care, pensions, and education had not been properly considered. He criticized the substantial connection test and the lack of required criminal background checks.

Questions and answers of note:

MP James Bezan explained the first-generation limit was created to ensure Canadians who claim citizenship have a direct relation to the country and value their citizenship. Regarding Bill C-3, he voiced support for the changes for children adopted abroad and Lost Canadians but said the substantial connection test is weak and could allow people to misuse Canadian citizenship and receive benefits without ever paying taxes or living in Canada.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Roman Baber spoke about the privilege of obtaining Canadian citizenship and said Bill C-3 devalues citizenship by offering it in perpetuity to children not born in Canada and by diluting ceremonial requirements such as oaths.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Frank Caputo questioned the process for verifying someone has spent 1,095 days in Canada to meet the substantial connection test. He said the CPC wants an immigration system that is just and requires an appropriate connection to Canada.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Jamil Jivani argued Canada already has more people than it has services for and bringing in more people would worsen the situation. He said the Liberals want to hand out Canadian citizenship like it is candy, and called the Liberal immigration policy reckless.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Jagsharan Singh Mahal argued Bill C-3 would create two classes of citizens: those who worked hard to become a citizen, and those who were raised abroad and have a grandparent born in Canada. He noted neither group is born in Canada, but only one needs to truly believe in Canada and contribute to receive their citizenship. He said IRCC has massive backlogs and that the Minister needs to fix the department before admitting 100,000 more citizens. He suggested there should be at least five years of time spent in Canada to show a substantial connection.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Grant Jackson (CPC) expressed concern that Bill C-3 could result in many new Canadians at a time when social services are under strain and that the substantial connection requirement is inadequate. He argued the scope of Bill C-3 dramatically exceeds that of past bills aimed at Lost Canadians, such as Bill S-245. He clarified the CPC supports parts of Bill C-3, including provisions for adopted children, but opposes the bill as a whole.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Blaine Calkins spoke to the importance of Canadian citizenship and said it should not be “diluted” by granting it too readily to those with weak ties to Canada. He spoke in favour of a first-generation limit and argued the substantial connection test is too weak; he contended criminal background checks should be required. He said the Bill is unfair to those who have earned citizenship through conventional channels.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Marc Dalton stated the CPC believes citizenship involves a defined connection to Canada, its institutions, democracy, and the rule of law. He said citizenship should be earned and respected and that newcomers should value a citizenship they have worked hard for. MP Dalton explained why he and his party cannot support Bill C-3 in its current form. He emphasized concerns about potential crime impacts and the number of citizens who could be created. He said he supports granting Lost Canadians citizenship but would like amendments to ensure applicants have a substantive connection to Canada and are not dangerous criminals.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Matt Strauss said he was concerned Bill C-3 undermines the value of Canadian citizenship. He argued that awarding citizenship to children of Canadians who have lived abroad and have no substantial ties is unfair to permanent residents who have worked for years to obtain citizenship. He said awarding citizenship to people not in Canada who have not contributed to local communities deflates the value of citizenship. He also warned that the government could worsen crises in health care and housing by creating more than 100,000 new citizens by legislative change.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Brad Vis said he supports certain parts of the legislation but has many concerns about the overall bill and its implications for the value of Canadian citizenship. He asked whether it is fair for immigrants who had to meet stricter rules for family ties, security checks, and residency to see others obtain citizenship under more permissive rules. He requested a clearer outline from the Minister for IRCC about the impacts of Bill C-3. He also asked how the Canadian diaspora could affect conscription and military service, how the government would be responsible for new citizens abroad with no ties to Canada, and how IRCC would handle an additional load of citizenship applications, including potential electoral/voting impacts for Canadians abroad.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Helena Konanz said Bill C-3 changes the nature of Canadian citizenship and that she could not support it in its current form. She criticized the test for connection to Canada, calling it a backdoor to citizenship by convenience. She referenced potential strain on housing and health care from a broad scope and urged amendments that place stronger emphasis on substantial ties to Canada.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Mel Arnold highlighted the value of citizenship and criticized the government for not changing the legislation from previously debated bills (for example, Bill C-71), despite awareness of CPC concerns. He said the CPC does not support Bill C-3 in its current form because it would extend citizenship by descent to unlimited generations born abroad and because the substantial connection test is insufficient. He voiced support for provisions on citizenship for adopted children and restoring citizenship to Lost Canadians and said the CPC would be ready to work collaboratively at committee.

Questions and answers of note:

Bloc Québécois

MP Gabriel Ste-Marie explained that the first-generation limit is discriminatory to Canadians living and working abroad who have children. He reviewed the many situations that have created Lost Canadians and stated the BQ supports the principle of Bill C-3 but may propose technical adjustments as amendments to strengthen the legislation. He noted many problems exist within the immigration department and said the Citizenship Act should be comprehensively revisited to simplify and clarify the process.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Sébastien Lemire gave an overview of Bill C-3 and provided examples of injustices the bill would remedy, including cases of children of diplomats and children born in the 1970s and 1980s. He explained how Bill C-3 would be important for scenarios such as Indigenous marriages and international adoptions. He reiterated that the Citizenship Act needs an overhaul and concluded the BQ would support Bill C-3.

Questions and answers of note:

New Democratic Party

MP Jenny Kwan explained the purpose of the bill: to make citizenship laws compliant with the Charter following the Bjorquist decision. She said the 2006 “second-generation cut-off” was found unconstitutional and outlined discrimination faced by first-generation women born abroad, noting that where someone gives birth can affect their child’s right to citizenship. She emphasized citizenship is a right and said people obtaining citizenship under Bill C-3 would not be immigrants but citizens by right. She opposed proposals for criminality tests for people entitled to citizenship and accused the CPC of filibustering and using delay tactics in past debates to prevent similar legislation from passing.

Questions and answers of note:

Green Party

MP Elizabeth May spoke in favour of expeditiously passing Bill C-3. She asked whether an amendment explicitly stating that citizenship is a right would be helpful. She outlined the history of the Lost Canadians issue before Parliament, including how Bill C-71 came close to Royal Assent, and said Bill C-3 should receive consideration in committee so concerns can be raised there.

Questions and answers of note:

The debate will continue in a future sitting.

Dear Colleagues,

On June 5, 2025, Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) was introduced and read for a first time in the House of Commons.

Second reading debate on the bill continued today. A summary of the debate can be found below.

Friday, September 19, 2025
Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)
Rebecca Pryce, Parliamentary Affairs

Key Takeaways

Summary of Remarks

Liberal Party of Canada

MP Stéphane Lauzon stated that the purpose of Bill C-3 is to recognize people with ongoing links to Canada, regardless of where their lives have taken them. He said Canada should serve as an example to other countries by showing the importance of family reunification through an approach that recognizes diversity and trans-border families. He argued that Canadian citizenship should remain a symbol of inclusiveness, fairness, security, and commitment to these values, and that Bill C-3 ensures this. He added that passing citizenship beyond one generation strengthens the ties, contributions, and values of citizens. He concluded that the bill is about inclusion rather than exclusion, and that Canadians abroad and their children with connections to Canada are part of what makes the country strong.

Questions and answers of note:

Conservative Party of Canada

MP Dan Mazier noted that Bill S-245 was originally introduced to address Lost Canadians, but that the LPC amended it so extensively it stalled at report stage. He said Bill C-3 is a repeat of that legislation and of Bill C-71. He stated that while the CPC supports provisions regarding adopted children and restoring citizenship to Lost Canadians, it does not support removing the first-generation limit, which he argued protects the value of Canadian citizenship. He criticized the absence of a clear requirement for parents to prove 1,095 days in Canada under the substantial connection test and the lack of criminal record checks. He referenced the Parliamentary Budget Officer report that estimated 115,000 new citizens could be created through this legislation, and that the government has no idea how many people would become eligible for citizenship through Bill C-3. He further criticized government immigration policies, pointing to challenges in the healthcare sector due to population growth and slow recognition of internationally trained professionals’ credentials, and called for a Blue Seal Program to accelerate credential recognition.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Kyle Seeback noted Bill C-3 will have consequences and Canadians will pay the cost. He cited a case involving an individual in an ISIS video who was able to enter Canada, noting his June 2024 Order Paper Question revealed that IRCC staff have only 30 minutes to review each application, leaving room for errors such as this one. He said Bill C-3’s substantial connection test is weak, allowing citizenship to be passed down for multiple generations without clear proof of presence in Canada. He called for security checks to be added, and pointed out that peer countries restrict citizenship by descent to the first generation. He said immigration is a major concern for his constituents, called for eliminating the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, and concluded by saying Bill C-3 is another mess happening that the LPC did not have to create.

Questions and answers of note:

MP Scott Anderson stated that citizenship must be fair, secure, meaningful, and reflect a genuine connection to Canada, but that Bill C-3 undermines these principles. He supported provisions on adopted children and Lost Canadians but opposed removing the first-generation limit, replacing it with what he described as a flimsy substantial connection test. He recalled that the first-generation limit was implemented after the 2006 Lebanon crisis, when thousands of “Canadians of convenience” sought costly taxpayer-funded evacuations before returning abroad. He said the new test does not require a real connection to Canada and questioned what message it sends to immigrants who worked hard to earn citizenship, while others could obtain it without paying taxes, speaking an official language, undergoing criminal checks, or living in Canada. Citing Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates, he said 115,000 new citizens could be added at an upfront cost of $21 million, with further long-term costs in healthcare, pensions, and services. He warned that IRCC is already overwhelmed, and noted that peer countries also limit citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad. He concluded that citizenship should not be treated as a convenience or insurance policy for those who live abroad and return only in times of crisis.

Questions and answers of note:

The debate concluded when the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship moved a motion to deem the bill be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. A deferred recorded division will take place on Monday, September 22, at approximately 3:00 p.m.

Page details

2026-01-30