Citizenship Act
Bill to Amend--Third Reading--Debate
November 19, 2025
Moved, for Senator Coyle, third reading of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025).
She said: Honourable senators, please bear with me, as English is my third language.
I am honoured today to speak on behalf of Senator Coyle, the sponsor of Bill C-3, who apologizes that she can’t be present to speak today due to unforeseen circumstances.
We have been working together on this important bill, as I have been serving as the legislative lead within the Independent Senators Group for Bill C-3. Senator Coyle asked me to deliver her remarks today. And here they are:
Colleagues, at second reading, I provided you with some history on Canadian citizenship as a legal status and on the Canadian Citizenship Act which this bill will amend.
I outlined some of the changes to the Citizenship Act over the years and some of the impacts of those changes, including the problematic situations that Bill C-3 is designed to address, and I provided some examples.
I mentioned the example of my own family with my daughter Lindelwa Naledi Coyle, whom I gave birth to in Botswana, not having the same rights as her Canadian-born sisters, Emilie and Lauren, to pass on her citizenship to her daughters Violetta and Sierra who were born in Mexico.
I described the key elements of the bill which provided clear rules for access to citizenship by descent going forward. In future cases, where the Canadian parent is born or adopted abroad, their child born or adopted abroad can gain citizenship if the parent has a substantial connection to Canada.
The legislation also addresses historical gaps. If enacted, it would confer citizenship on those subject to the first-generation limit, meaning all those born abroad in a second or subsequent generation to a Canadian parent before this legislation comes into force.
It also restores citizenship to some who previously lost it and provides a framework that provides similar access to citizenship for families who adopt children abroad — most but not all of them. I’ll share more on this later.
I explained why Bill C-3 is both necessary and urgent.
Our task at third reading is to decide whether the bill before us is a principled and practical way to restore fair access and clarity to citizenship by descent.
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has completed its study of Bill C-3 and has reported it back to this chamber without amendments.
The Social Affairs Committee met on November 17 to study Bill C-3. The committee heard from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and her officials as well as nine other witnesses, including lawyers from the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association as well as academics, parent adoption advocates, “Lost Canadians” advocates and the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
The Social Affairs Committee also conducted a pre-study of Bill C-3’s predecessor, Bill C-71, in December 2024.
As the Senate sponsor of Bill C-3, I agree with the committee’s report. Some colleagues asked whether moving to pass this legislation now allows sufficient time for sober second thought. I respect that concern, but the legal and administrative context matters.
In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared key provisions of the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent unconstitutional, finding they violated equality and mobility rights under the Charter. The court suspended its declaration to allow Parliament time to respond until tomorrow, November 20, but recently provided an extension until January 20, 2026.
Bill C-3 is the solution. It would remedy the status of people who, were it not for the first-generation limit set in 2009, would have been Canadian citizens by descent from birth. This includes a cohort of children 16 and under and includes the descendants of previously remedied “Lost Canadians.” It addresses a small cohort who lost citizenship under outdated provisions of the 1977 Citizenship Act.
Going forward, Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, would also ensure that a child born or adopted abroad by a Canadian with a substantial connection to this country has access to citizenship no matter where the family lives.
That connection must be demonstrated through the parent’s physical presence in Canada for at least 1,095 cumulative days — or three years in total — before the child’s birth or adoption abroad. Some people have argued that these three years should be spent within a five-year time frame based on the logic that this approach mirrors Canada’s approach to naturalization. But citizenship by descent is different. It is not about granting citizenship to someone new who has immigrated to Canada. It is about verifying that a Canadian born or adopted abroad has a substantial connection to this country before they can pass on citizenship to their child also born or adopted abroad. A cumulative model recognizes the reality that Canadians can build profound, durable ties to this country over time, even if those ties are not within a five-year period.
We have also heard concerns about application volumes, costs and possible pressures on social services. Honourable colleagues, it is important to note that the fear mongering around hundreds of thousands or even a million people gaining Canadian citizenship because of Bill C-3 is an unfounded overexaggeration.
On Monday evening at committee, Jason Jacques, Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, said:
. . . Based upon our analysis, we estimate the total net cost of the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act to be about $21 million over five years. The total number of persons who would be affected is estimated to be around 115,000 over the same period. . . .
Between January 2024 and July 2025, the department received just over 4,200 applications under the interim measure for those affected by the first-generation limit. Similar amendments were previously made in 2009 and 2015, and in the decades since, around 20,000 people applied for proof of their remedied citizenship status.
The number of Section 8 “Lost Canadian” applications for a discretionary grant of citizenship is also low and decreasing. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, initially received 35 to 40 applications per year. The department did not see a surge in applications in any of these instances.
The net fiscal impact should also be limited.
Some in the new cohort covered by Bill C-3 are already living in Canada and contributing to general revenues, while those abroad are generally not eligible for most domestic social programs. Every federal and provincial program has its own eligibility rules based on age, income, legal status, tax filing or residency in Canada or a province for a set period. Anyone who applies to a program or service needs to meet all its criteria, just like any other Canadian.
Questions were also raised about security, language and knowledge tests. Citizenship by descent has never required screening for security, criminality or language proficiency, and this bill keeps it that way. Canada cannot have different classes of citizens: those born here whose citizenship is automatic and those born abroad beyond the first generation who must pass extra tests.
The burden of proof rests squarely on the Canadian parent, who must provide evidence of their 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada before their child’s birth or adoption abroad. Documents such as educational transcripts, pay stubs or leases will be reviewed by officers. If a parent can’t demonstrate their substantial connection to Canada, their child born or adopted abroad will not be Canadian.
Colleagues, at second reading, the critic of this bill argued that the government should have appealed the court’s decision and that proceeding under a court deadline risked compressing debate. I still understand the concern. However, we are not legislating in the dark, and we don’t have much time even with the new deadline.
We have a constitutional problem to remedy. We have a clear solution. We have tested policy choices. The cumulative 1,095-day standard borrows its number from naturalization. It’s applied differently to provide flexibility for Canadians to pursue opportunities abroad. It’s a practically feasible rule that respects families’ real lives and preserves the value of Canadian citizenship.
Some have suggested that multi-generational Canadians living permanently abroad could acquire citizenship without connection. The bill’s structure addresses that. Each generation beyond the first must demonstrate their connection again before passing citizenship on. If a parent does not have a substantial connection to our country, citizenship by descent stops with them.
At Monday’s committee, we heard about the opposite problem existing under our current reality. We heard about the hardships and costs the unremedied situation imposes on Canadian women born abroad and who happen to be living abroad when they want to have children.
Toronto Metropolitan University professor Allison Petrozziello said:
. . . Since 2009, the only advice the government has been able to offer Canadian women about how to ensure they can pass on their citizenship is to fly home in late-stage pregnancy to give birth in Canada. Even during COVID-19, even when it’s a high-risk pregnancy, even when the couple has been trying for years to get pregnant through IVF treatment and even when the doctors and health insurance are in place in their country of residence but not back home here in Canada. So Bill C-3 promises to eliminate gender discrimination from our Citizenship Act once and for all, and to allow Canadian parents to make the reproductive decisions in consultation with their doctors, not government.
The substantial-connection provision is a principled and fair rule. It is also a human one because it focuses on one mother’s real, demonstrated ties to Canada rather than on rigid calendars that may penalize families whose lives cross borders.
Honourable senators, Bill C-3 is designed to restore citizenship status to those who were left out. It sets a clear, evidence-based standard for the future. It maintains the integrity of Canadian citizenship by making sure that connection — not convenience — governs transmission beyond the first generation.
After passing Bill C-3 at the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee, Senator Arnot introduced three observations, which were also supported —
Senator Youance, I’m sorry but your time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes?
Yes, one minute.
Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Thank you, Your Honour.
With Bill C-3, we can remedy the status of “Lost Canadians” and modernize our law so that it reflects how Canadians actually live.
Canadians are mobile and global, and yet we are deeply connected to this country. I urge you to pass Bill C-3 so that our Canadian Citizenship Act can better reflect our modern reality.
Thank you.
Honourable senators, I rise today not to delay this bill. The timeline imposed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Bjorkquist case is real, and the consequences of missing it are serious. However, even under judicial deadline, Parliament has an obligation to ensure that, in correcting long-standing inequities, it does not inadvertently create new ones.
It is in that spirit that I wish to speak to one central concern: the inequitable treatment of intercountry adoptees under Bill C-3. These are children brought into Canadian families through a lengthy, highly scrutinized adoption process, children for whom Canada’s obligations under the Hague Convention require equality of status with domestically adopted Canadian children. Yet, Bill C-3 risks creating new barriers that fall unfairly and uniquely upon that group.
Bill C-3 applies to children born abroad to Canadians, children adopted abroad by Canadians living abroad and, critically — though problematically — intercountry adoptees.
One crucial thing that is important to note is that the phrase “international adoption” is a general term. “International adoption” is the broad term for any adoption in which the child and adoptive parents are from different countries. Importantly, the phrase “intercountry adoption” is a legal term. It is used in Canadian and international law to describe the process of adopting a child from another country through the formal cross-border legal system, such as the Hague Convention.
In recent correspondence, officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, provided essential clarifications, particularly, that children born abroad to Canadians living abroad — group 1 — and children adopted abroad by Canadians living abroad — group 2 — may obtain citizenship under section 5.1 of the Citizenship Act even if they never lived in Canada at all. Their parents do not need to reside in Canada after adoption, and their adoption need not be recognized by provincial authority. Citizenship is granted directly.
The IRCC also confirmed that section 5.1, created after the McKenna case in 1998 and interpreted in the Worthington case in 2008, was intended to ensure equality between children born abroad and children adopted abroad, but not to create new distinctions. Finally, the IRCC emphasized that Bill C-3 applies the substantial connection test equally to children born abroad and children adopted abroad.
However, colleagues, equal wording does not always produce equal outcomes, and that is where the specific concerns about intercountry adoptees arise. The IRCC’s clarifications reveal that we must recognize three distinct groups:
Group 1, children born abroad to Canadian citizens living abroad, may never reside in Canada, yet still acquire and transmit citizenship if their parents meet the 1,095-day requirement; group 2, children adopted abroad by Canadians living abroad, similarly, may never live in Canada, yet are granted citizenship by direct grant; and group 3, the intercountry adoptees. These children are adopted by Canadian citizens living in Canada. They are — in fact and in law — adopted in Canada. They must have their adoption authorized and supervised under provincial and territorial law. They undergo the Hague Convention safeguards. They enter Canada only after federal approval and are raised in Canada, often from infancy, as fully integrated members of Canadian society.
Yet, unfortunately, Bill C-3 treats them for citizenship transmission purposes as if they belong to group 1 or 2, children who may never live in Canada at all. For intercountry adoptees, the application — and this is the problem — of the substantial connection test is fundamentally inequitable.
If you take one thing away from my speech today, let it be this: Intercountry adoptees must be treated the same as domestic adoptees. It is a requirement of the Hague Convention that intercountry adoptees have the same rights and treatment as in-country adoptees.
Another way to say this is that, because domestic adoptees do not have a substantial connection test, neither should intercountry adoptees. That is the requirement in this bill that is the barrier which is prohibited by the Hague Convention.
Let us reflect on this: No group of Canadian citizens undergoes a more rigorous, multi-layered vetting process before entering Canada than that of intercountry adoptees. These children are subject to these tests: provincial and territorial approval, provincial child welfare oversight, foreign state approval, best-interests assessments, anti-trafficking safeguards, a Hague Convention compliance review, a federal citizenship review and confirmation that the adoption is genuine, not procured for citizenship advantage.
Witnesses told the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology that this is an integrated process. An adoption order triggers a “letter of no objection” from the province, and it is only then that the IRCC will allow the child to enter Canada.
As one witness put it, “. . . if the IRCC does not believe we are compliant of the law, I don’t have a son.”
Despite all of this, Bill C-3 requires these adoptees — children who grow up here in Canada, attend Canadian schools and whose lives unfold in Canada — to again prove a substantial connection to the very country that adopted them. It is an absurd anomaly.
Witnesses described this as a form of double scrutiny and, more painfully, as calling into question the legitimacy of the adopted child’s status as a Canadian. One mother put it this way: Asking an intercountry adoptee “. . . to prove they are connected to the nation that adopted them is tantamount to asking them who their real parents are.”
This bill raises matters of constitutional and international law for intercountry adoptees, which include the equality rights in section 15 of the Charter. Intercountry adoptees face discriminatory impacts because of their country of birth, their adoption pathway, their disproportionate representation among racialized children and their potential reduced mobility due to trauma and medical needs. They are treated differently than domestically adopted children despite the Hague Convention’s guarantee of equal treatment.
Section 6 of the Charter, mobility rights: The substantial connection test restricts the future mobility of adoptees, who may not be able to accumulate 1,095 days in Canada while they are still young.
Section 7 of the Charter, security of person: Witnesses explained that limiting an adoptee’s ability to transmit citizenship threatens family unity and future security.
International law, under the Hague Convention: Canada must ensure that intercountry adoptees have the same rights as domestic adoptees. Domestic adoptees receive automatic, full transmissible citizenship. Therefore, Bill C-3 violates that principle.
Witnesses stated bluntly that Canada has been failing to comply with the Hague Convention since 2009. It is a serious allegation, and it deserves serious examination. Time did not permit that.
The government put forward a Charter Statement of issues. The Charter Statement asserts the bill is constitutional.
Here, we must be clear and precise and state that this Charter Statement is deficient. Here are the deficiencies: first, it does not address intercountry adoptees at all; second, it offers an incomplete equality analysis; third, it does not consider the Hague Convention or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; fourth, it does not address the adverse-effect evidence heard by the Social Affairs Committee on Monday night from Canadian families; and fifth, the committee’s work therefore fills the constitutional gaps that this Charter Statement does not address.
Some have argued that there is no time for amendments. That is true, but Parliament can still place its concerns on the record and commit to future corrections. Indeed, witnesses reminded us that is precisely what occurred in 2009. In 2009, under similar time pressures, the Senate passed Bill C-37. Despite concerns about rigidity and fairness, the Senate nevertheless entered strong observations into the record — warnings that were later cited in Charter litigation. We can, and should, follow that example.
The Social Affairs Committee heard extraordinary testimony from Ms. Katherine Lanteigne and Mr. Graeme Ball, adoptive parents of Nathanael, age 10. Their testimony clarified essential legal realities. First, it is illegal to adopt a child abroad through intercountry adoption unless the parents reside in Canada. Second, intercountry adoption is not the same as international adoption; I mentioned that on purpose before. It is a specific and highly regulated Hague process. Third, intercountry adoptees are not immigrants; their status is determined by adoption law, not immigration law. Fourth, the IRCC’s public explanations have, at times, blurred these distinctions, creating confusion for policy-makers.
The Social Affairs Committee witnesses described the trauma, racialized othering and lasting harm that arises when adoptees are treated as less than fully Canadian. They made clear that if Bill C-3 passes unchanged, as it will today, they will pursue a Charter challenge on behalf of their son. They have retained experienced constitutional counsel, including Professor Sujit Choudhry, who previously successfully litigated the Bjorkquist case — the Ontario case. They have reminded us that Canada’s noncompliance with the Hague Convention is not merely theoretical; it risks affecting Canada’s reputation with partner countries that trust Canada to follow the convention faithfully.
The evidence provided by Ms. Lanteigne and Mr. Ball was powerful, emotional, deeply personal and rooted in law. It must inform our deliberations.
Because the declaration of invalidity is suspended only until January 20, 2026, the Senate cannot realistically amend this bill without risking a legislative vacuum. We cannot allow a situation where no citizenship transmission rules apply. But we can, and must, make our concerns clear: first, that intercountry adoptees form a distinct, uniquely vulnerable class of Canadian children; second, Bill C-3 is a clear, unambiguous breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at sections 15, 6 and 7, and is a breach of the Hague Convention as applied to them; third, Parliament never intended to make their citizenship conditional or less transmissible; and fourth, future legislation should include a targeted, narrow fix, such as treating intercountry adoptees who grew up in Canada as — and this is a legal term — “citizens otherwise than by descent,” as the United Kingdom does, to cure this breach.
It is a simple, straightforward, legal legislative remedy. It is an amendment that I would have brought forward had I been allowed to with more time.
I also note, with encouragement, that the minister, the Honourable Metlege Diab, has agreed to meet with representatives of intercountry adoptees, including Ms. Lanteigne and Mr. Ball. This is a positive step that I encourage because I hope there is a legislative solution, which is the only thing that could carry this.
Colleagues, I want to thank Senator Coyle, the sponsor; Senator Youance, who read Senator Coyle’s speech; Senator Moodie, Chair of the Social Affairs Committee; the deputy chair, Senator Osler —
Senator Arnot, your time has expired. I will ask your honourable colleagues if they will allow you more time.
Is leave granted?
I just want to mention all the Social Affairs Committee members who grappled with this issue thoughtfully and who supported the three observations.
Citizenship is more than a legal status; it is a declaration of belonging. When Canadian parents adopt a child from abroad, they do not say to the child, “You are Canadian but only conditionally.” They say, “You are ours.”
Bill C-3 moves Canada toward rectifying the injustices suffered by “Lost Canadians,” and for that, it deserves support, but it also risks creating a new generation of Canadians who face barriers that no other Canadian children face: children whose connections to Canada have been proven more thoroughly than those of any other Canadian citizen yet who must still prove them again.
Let us pass this bill to meet the court’s deadline, but let us also speak clearly, as the Senate did in 2009, so that future Parliaments can finish the work: Intercountry adoptees must never become the next generation of “Lost Canadians.”
Thank you, colleagues.
Honourable senators, I’ll be very brief. I would have asked Senator Arnot a question, but we ran out of time.
I don’t understand how we could receive a bill this Monday — within our rules, we actually had extra committee time; it wasn’t used — and be here at this point. There are three weeks left in the sitting calendar, and you’re telling us that you were told that there isn’t enough time to do what we’re supposed to. This is our job. Why? Sir, how bad will you feel if we pass this amendment — and we are going to have an amendment — send it back and don’t have the one that you wanted?
I’m shocked that we would stand here and say that we don’t have time to deal with this. It’s a real shame.
I thank you for your comments and your passion about this. If we had a nickel for every time a minister told us not to amend a bill for whatever reason, we would be rich.
Senator Arnot, I’m sad for you; you’re a valued member of this Senate and an important contributor here. I wish that we had an amendment that you could whistle out of our desk right now, because we are going to deal with amendments here. I don’t know if that’s possible, but maybe. I don’t know what the amendment that we’re dealing with is, but if we pass it, this minister might stand up and introduce the amendment that you would and should have introduced here. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I rise today as critic of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act.
Normally, I would begin by reminding the chamber of the bill’s details, but given that barely less than two weeks have passed since my previous remarks, I will instead begin with the legislative history that has brought us to this point.
We need to go back 21 years, to 2004, during the Third Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament, when Senator Noël Kinsella introduced Bill S-17 to remedy cases of individuals who had unintentionally lost their Canadian citizenship because of outdated provisions in the 1947 act.
Although unanimously adopted in this chamber, the bill died on the Order Paper in the other place. Its substance returned in the next Parliament as Bill S-2, which received Royal Assent in 2005 and became one of the early steps, driven by the Senate, in restoring status to those unfairly excluded under earlier laws.
Building on that foundation, Bill C-37, in 2008, addressed many remaining cases and introduced the first-generation limit, an attempt to balance fairness and inclusion with the need to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship and prevent so-called citizens of convenience.
Bill C-24 later made further technical adjustments, and Bill S-245 from the last Parliament sought a targeted remedy for families serving Canada abroad.
With Bill C-3 now in front of us, we have a bill that not only aims to close the loopholes for “Lost Canadians” from the Bjorkquist decision but actually rewrites citizenship by descent in this country.
It is important to recognize that it was this chamber — composed of both a government caucus and an opposition caucus, each tied to national parties — that first set in motion the effort to remedy these inequities. It was the Senate’s sober second thought, combined with senators’ ability to elevate overlooked issues within their caucuses, which paved that way. Through careful study, principled advocacy and collaboration across party lines, the Senate played a decisive role in prompting Parliament to act.
With that history in mind, colleagues, it is concerning that a bill of such consequence — one that redefines citizenship by descent and addresses the rights of “Lost Canadians” — is before us for less than two weeks. If we take away the break week, colleagues, as Senator Tannas pointed out, we’re talking about hours and days.
Few questions and bills demand sober second thought more than the question of citizenship in our country. From Senator Kinsella’s initial efforts to the Harper government’s attempts to strike the right balance, Parliament has historically approached this file with diligent care.
Yet, today, we see a different approach. We have a government using a judicial deadline imposed by the court as a reason to fast-track our deliberations on Bill C-3 and to eliminate, in effect, sober second thought. Instead of senators’ conducting sober second thought focused on the content of the Citizenship Act and the potential consequences of Bill C-3 for Canadians and future generations, we are focused on meeting a deadline when it comes to the most fundamental element, our citizenship.
We were in the same situation with this bill’s predecessor, Bill C-71, last year, limited to four panels for committee study. How can we express with certainty that sober second thought was exercised under these types of conditions?
It is important to point out again that the government came to this chamber on November 6 with a motion we agreed to at the time because of an impending court deadline of November 20. As I said in my second-reading speech, we supported the procedural motion to ensure we could meet the court’s timeline. But then, on November 12, the Ontario Superior Court granted an extension of two months to January 20. Lo and behold, the crisis evaporated, a crisis we can now confirm the government had itself constructed for political expediency.
Colleagues, at that time, with the facts that we had before us, all leaders came together, and we made a deal. And being a responsible opposition, we will honour that deal.
But meanwhile, so far in this Parliament, we have received a very limited number of government bills. Outside of the mandatory supply measures, this chamber has dealt with exactly four government bills since May, colleagues. It’s unprecedented after a general election, a government with such a clear mandate to be transformational for generations to come, and all we’ve seen since the month of May, colleagues, is Bill C-5, which in effect is an offshoot of the Speech from the Throne, Bill S-2, Bill C-3, and we’re just beginning debate on Bill S-3.
That is the full extent of the government’s legislative ambition to date. After 34 sitting days since the opening of Parliament, only one government bill has received Royal Assent. If this keeps up, Canadians will start wondering not what the Senate is doing, but what Parliament is doing.
Despite claiming to have an ambitious agenda, despite every committee being ready and willing to study government legislation, the government appears in no hurry to govern or certainly to have their governance face the scrutiny of Parliament. Yet, if we count the number of days the Prime Minister is jet-setting across the country trying to save us, I think that adds up to a lot more than even 34 sitting days.
What is unmistakably becoming clear, even at this early stage of this Parliament, is that political expediency has taken precedence over everything else. Public relations, navel-gazing and photo ops are more important than legislation building.
We had the Minister of Justice today. I asked him some very concrete questions, and he kept giving me answers of aspirational legislation that is coming. He couldn’t come up with one piece of legislation to deal with victims’ rights, never mind over the last 34 days, the last 10 years. But, “Trust us; wait and see; it is coming.” It’s always coming.
We were told that Bill C-5 had to be rushed through immediately, and that one, perhaps, could be understood in the context of an election promise. We rushed that through with the collaboration of both sides of the chamber. However, the inconsistencies between Bill S-2, Bill C-5 and Bill C-3 are glaring.
With Bill C-5, the government assured First Nations across the country that consultations could simply happen after the bill passed. They said, “Trust us,” the most famous words I keep hearing from that government. I keep saying to be wary of any politician with gifts, let alone the comments along the lines of “Trust us.”
Yet, with Bill S-2, the very same government refuses to meet the committee halfway on amendments to eliminate the second-generation cut-off, suddenly insisting that their duty to consult is essential and of utmost importance.
Then, with Bill C-3, they pivot once again, demanding that the Senate pass the bill immediately to eliminate the second-generation cut-off in the Citizenship Act, but this time for Canadians born abroad.
The truth of the matter, colleagues, is that we have a government that is not interested in respecting the parliamentary process and a Prime Minister who shows little interest in being present in Parliament or in carrying out the mandate Canadians entrusted him to do in a transparent way, in consultation with the role that we as parliamentarians have.
As for the content of this legislation, as parliamentarians, our duty is to uphold the intrinsic value of Canadian citizenship and to ensure that meaningful ties remain at its core. Any amendments to the act must be clear, coherent and easy to administer, not only for prospective citizens but also for the public servants responsible for applying the law. During the committee’s last panel on Monday night, that’s exactly what was referred to.
And it is not the first time. In 2008, during its study of Bill C-37, the same committee put forward an observation that the government rewrite the Citizenship Act to make it clearer and easier to administer for the civil servants who have to apply it. We have that responsibility, colleagues.
That is why the amendments adopted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration were so important, two of which I thought were most important. By anchoring the 1,095 days within a five-year window, they ensured that the substantial connection test actually reflected a meaningful link to Canada while adopting identical requirements for citizenship by naturalization and by descent.
Furthermore, by extending language and security requirements to citizenship by descent and adopted children, they strengthened integration and national security. Finally, by introducing annual reporting requirements to Parliament, they provided transparency and oversight on the real-world impacts of these reforms.
These amendments represented a constructive step toward a clearer and more coherent Citizenship Act. But they also highlight a broader concern that cannot be ignored — the need for genuine transparency and accountability from the government — a matter that this government unfortunately tends to place on the back burner, the first of two amendments I thought were the most important.
At the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, a simple yet essential amendment proposed by MP Brad Redekopp was adopted. This amendment added no administrative complexity and did not change the scope of the bill at all. It simply required the minister to table, at the end of each fiscal year, a report before both houses of Parliament indicating how many people were granted citizenship as a result of the coming into force of this legislation, including their countries of citizenship other than Canada, where applicable, their most recent country of residence and the specific provisions of the act under which citizenship was granted. This is pretty reasonable, colleagues. In short, it was a transparency measure — a tool of parliamentary oversight — allowing Canadians and their representatives to assess the real impacts of such a significant legislative change.
Let us be frank: No one, not even the department, can currently say with precision how many individuals will become Canadian citizens because of this reform.
Colleagues, citizenship in Canada should not just be a piece of paper; it should be the most essential, valuable identity element of our nation. It has to be clear and transparent, and the government cannot take it lightly. If we do not have instruments to identify who is granted this important element of our identity, and how, what are we doing in this town?
I remember a former prime minister who not too long ago put out a simple tweet saying that Canada was open — come all and come free. The next thing we knew, we couldn’t handle the people coming in at Roxham Road. We couldn’t build hotels fast enough in Montreal, Toronto and across the country.
The catastrophe today — the cost of living and scarcity crisis we have in this country — is in large part due to irresponsible behaviour of that nature.
So when we put legislation as important as this forward, we need to be able to quantify the results.
During testimony at our committee on Monday evening, the assistant deputy minister stated that it is difficult to estimate the exact number of people who would be impacted by this legislation. That’s not me saying it; it was the assistant deputy minister. Instead, they looked to 2009, when a little over 20,000 individuals came forward. Also, since the court decision, from January 2024 to July 2025, they’ve received over 4,200 applications already.
The minister herself confirmed this lack of data during her testimony before the House of Commons Citizenship and Immigration Committee. Questioned by a committee member, Minister Diab initially stated that she did not believe Canada collected exact control data. That was before correcting herself after a brief exchange with her officials.
That episode, colleagues, also illustrates the level of confusion at the highest levels of the department on the availability and reliability of basic data required to assess this bill’s impacts. And it’s not because this government hasn’t hired more bureaucrats over the past 10 years; just look at the numbers.
When she was simply asked how many people would be affected by Bill C-3, the minister responded, “It’s impossible to know the exact number . . .”
Mine is not an isolated observation. Andrew Griffith, former director general at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, noted in his brief to the Social Affairs Committee that the quality of the information provided by the minister and her officials was “weak” and that confusion persisted even on the simple question of whether exit controls exist in Canada. Mr. Griffith added that IRCC publishes only 1 dataset on citizenship out of more than 100 available on the government’s open data portal. He described this situation as “. . . woefully inadequate . . .” for a program of such importance, pointing out that the publication of data on citizenship certificate applications — the only measure allowing us to know how many people reclaim their citizenship — ceased many years ago.
He concluded that MP Redekopp’s amendment was essential to ensure accountability.
In short, neither the department nor the minister can say how many people will see their status changed by this reform. The best estimate that we have is from the PBO — that, over a five-year period, Bill C-3 could affect around 115,000 individuals and cost millions of dollars. Yet the government chose to reject an amendment that would have addressed this gap by requiring an annual report to Parliament.
Then again, this is a government that finds Parliament a major inconvenience. God forbid we allow Parliament to play its role as a transparent agency.
In such a context of uncertainty, Parliament’s role is not to sign a blank cheque to the executive; it is to ensure rigorous monitoring of the law’s implementation. That amendment did exactly that: It imposed a reasonable accountability measure, consistent with democratic best practices and Canadians’ expectations of transparency.
The second and most important amendment to me is the one that aligned the requirement of citizenship by descent and naturalization to 1,095 days within five years, which was ultimately rejected by the government in the other place at the report stage.
Under Bill C-3, an individual need only accumulate 1,095 days in Canada at any point before a child’s birth. It’s not exactly a very rigid criterion. They can do it possibly decades before they have that child, which means they might not have been in Canada for 20 or 30 years, but at some point in time, if they accumulated 1,095 days and were somehow able to prove it, here we are.
In the government’s view, three years spent in Canada at any time constitutes a “. . . substantial connection . . . .” to our institutions, our values and our national community. Colleagues, it is common sense that citizenship by naturalization and by descent should operate on the same metrics: 1,095 days within a five-year period, together with the requirements for applicants to be aged 18 to 54, demonstrate proficiency in one of our official languages and meet appropriate security standards.
Greater global mobility does not require us to weaken our citizenship framework; it requires us to adapt responsibly while maintaining its integrity.
In the context of the PBO and even the minister herself being unable to say how many people this bill would affect, having a stronger substantial-connection test is not only reasonable but the responsible thing to do.
When the government cannot quantify the scope of the population it seeks to automatically confer citizenship upon, Parliament has an obligation to ensure that the framework is sound, measured and defensible. A more robust connection requirement acts as a safeguard against unintended consequences, preserves the integrity of citizenship and ensures that any expansion of automatic citizenship is grounded in evidence rather than guesswork.
In the absence of clear data, prudence is not obstruction; it is the very essence of sober second thought and what we should be doing in this place.
Not only was the amendment made to strengthen the substantial connection contained in our Citizenship Act, it was also done with a view of streamlining the Citizenship Act. The committee heard from Amandeep Hayer, representing the Canadian Bar Association, who recommended we need to stop using complex language and go to a very simple, consistent, easy-to-understand act.
Furthermore, collecting the evidence of someone making an entry and an exit over 10, 20 or 30 years to document 1,095 days could create an administrative burden almost impossible to follow. Imagine for a moment, colleagues, the administrative burden of tracking the entries and exits of individuals over 25 or 30 years, coming into the country for a few months or a few weeks, et cetera. Imagine that. We have a hard enough time collecting taxes in an efficient fashion — or tracking how many people around the world are not paying taxes. Percy Downe can remind us how efficient the Canada Revenue Agency is at doing that.
Imagine how the IRCC is going to perform in keeping track of all of this over a period of 20 or 30 years.
We hear stories where individuals or families were ordered to leave the country due to clerical errors. We read the story of Diana Calderón in the CBC.
I want to be clear, colleagues: I’m not blaming the IRCC public servants — far from it. The government came in with Bill C-3, added a new metric to be measured over an indeterminate period of time before a child’s birth and dumped it on the public service to figure out. But at some point, we as parliamentarians need to help them facilitate how they deliver services to Canadians. It is our duty to do so. It is our duty to make sure that the bill and the services that the public service is required to carry out here are rational and practical.
By having it framed within a five-year period, like naturalization, the department already has the know-how to apply the policy. It makes sense, but yet again, the government decided it knows better than the committee and will impose the burden to implement this policy on the public service. It is saying, “You figure it out.”
These amendments would have been a step toward simplifying an already overcomplicated act. This need is not new: In 2009, during its study of Bill C-37, our own Social Affairs Committee called for a complete rewrite of the Citizenship Act to make it clearer and easier to administer. With Bill C-3 — and with the thoughtful amendments adopted in the other place — we finally had an opportunity to move closer to that goal. That observation was echoed again in the committee’s report on Bill C-3:
Your Committee observes that the Citizenship Act has become increasingly complex and difficult for Canadians to understand. Given the many piecemeal amendments over decades, the Act would benefit from comprehensive modernization, including the adoption of plain-language drafting techniques.
Simplifying the Act would enhance public understanding, reduce administrative burdens, and ensure that Canadians can more easily know and exercise their citizenship rights and responsibilities.
Unfortunately, that opportunity was deliberately taken away when the bill was restored to its original form at report stage. In that moment, every effort by the committee in the other place to strengthen the bill was dismissed with the flick of a pen.
And what makes this all the more troubling is that it occurred at the very beginning of this Parliament. In these early months, when the government should be setting the tone with coherent, thoughtful legislation, we are instead seeing disorganization and complete indifference toward Parliament. If this is how the session begins, we are left to wonder: Is this the tone Canadians should expect for the Forty-fifth Parliament?
What the sequence reveals is a troubling pattern: urgency when it suits the government’s political narrative and delay when Parliament seeks to address inequities the government has chosen not to prioritize. We were told that the Senate had to move at an unprecedented speed to rescue the government from a deadline it claimed could not be shifted. Yet, last week, the same government quietly secured an extension. Parliament was not informed, senators had acted in good faith, and here we are, colleagues. This is not how a responsible government should work with a chamber of sober second thought, especially one that has shown, on both sides of the chamber, our willingness to be responsible and to be transparent. It undermines trust in the process and weakens parliamentary scrutiny. The next time the government has a deadline, will it be a real deadline or another one where the government will change the target at the last minute after this chamber acts in good faith?
As we conclude our deliberations on Bill C-3, citizenship is one of the most significant legal statuses our country confers. Our responsibility is twofold: to ensure the long-standing injustices facing “Lost Canadians” are finally resolved and to preserve the coherence, integrity and meaning of Canadian citizenship for future generations.
While our time with Bill C-3 was very limited and too short, I cannot stay silent on the common-sense amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in the other place to even out the time frame of 1,095 days within five years between naturalization and citizenship by descent. We also heard this recommendation from Andrew Griffith during the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee, and it makes sense, colleagues, to at least clear up the language, add some uniformity and strengthen safeguards to Canadian citizenship.
I quote Andrew Griffith at the committee on Monday evening on the complexity of reading the act:
. . . This addressed my main concerns regarding the difficulty for both applicants and the IRCC to administer Bill C-3, along with creating a stronger connection test. Processing time for citizenship proof has already increased from five to nine months’ pre-Bill C-3 implementation. In my view, it would be irresponsible to add the additional administrative burden of determining 1,095 days of residence over a lifetime as opposed to five years on a department that is already struggling with meeting service standards.
Colleagues, with that, I move that Bill C-3 be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 1:
(a) by replacing line 36 on page 3 with the following:
“1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person’s birth; or”
(b) by replacing line 28 on page 4 with the following:
“1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person’s birth.”
Honourable colleagues, I think this is a reasonable amendment. It brings integrity and transparency to the process. It will allow the objective of this bill to have a fighting chance because otherwise it would not be manageable on the part of the civil service.
Even though we have not been given an opportunity to pass other amendments that would also strengthen this bill — and I listened very carefully to the speech from Senator Arnot, who brought up many good points that needed to be addressed and won’t be addressed unfortunately — this is a key element, one of four or five amendments that we have an opportunity to address. We should send it back, and I believe that without this amendment, this bill does not have a chance of surviving. I think this bill would not be applicable. The administration in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada would have a hard time making sense of this. It would be a failure to all of those “Lost Canadians” who do deserve legitimately to have bestowed upon them the right of Canadian citizenship, but it needs to be done in a fair, balanced way.
I move this amendment. I hope it garners support. I remind our fellow senators that at the end of the day, all these amendments will be decided upon by the elected House and the elected government, but I think it’s incumbent on us to shed light where there is darkness right now and to push back even though the government has shown a propensity not to be open to common-sense sober suggestions. I think this is one, and I hope it does meet your approval. Thank you, colleagues.
