THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 18, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 8:30 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025); and, in camera, to consider a draft report.
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. My name is Rosemary Moodie. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
Before we begin, I’d like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves, starting with Senator Cuzner on my left.
[Translation]
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner from Nova Scotia.
Senator Boudreau: Good morning. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot. I’m from Saskatchewan, the home of the Grey Cup champions once again. I just want to say this morning I have my lucky tie on. It worked on Sunday for the Roughriders. It hope it works for me today. It’s not always lucky.
The Chair: Today, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025).
I’d like to welcome the officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada who are with us today in the room and are available to answer technical questions if needed: Uyen Hoang, Director General, Citizenship Policy Branch; Stephanie Jay-Tosh, Acting Senior Director, Legislation and Program Policy; Allison Bernard, Senior Policy Analyst; Jody Dewan, Senior Analyst; and Alain Laurencelle, Manager and Senior Counsel, Legal Services. Welcome.
Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators of a number of points. As chair, I will call each clause successively in the order that they appear on the bill. If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have a question about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question. Are there any questions on the above‑mentioned rules? If not, we can now proceed.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Arnot: Chair, I have three observations that I would like the committee to consider. These were drafted last night and circulated to the clerk at around ten o’clock. They are available now in French and English. I would like to speak to these clauses, all three of them. I’ll take your direction, chair, as to how you want me to proceed on this.
The Chair: We’ll proceed with consideration of the observations from Senator Arnot while the distribution is happening. I’ll wait. Then we’ll deal with them observation by observation.
Senator Arnot: I’d like to speak to Observation 1. What I’m saying here is that —
The Chair: I’m sorry; we will suspend to go in camera to discuss these observations. One important step.
(The committee continued in camera.)