Citizenship Act
Motion in Amendment Negatived
November 19, 2025
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Bill C-3 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, in clause 1,
(a) on page 3, by replacing line 36 with the following:
“1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person’s birth; or”;
(b) on page 4, by replacing line 28 with the following:
“1,095 days during any period of five consecutive years before the person’s birth.”.
Would Senator Housakos take a question concerning his amendment?
Yes.
I won’t return to Senator Housakos’ speech, because I disagree with a lot of what was said.
However, I clearly heard that one of the key items is that the senator wants to clarify the bill’s language and make it more precise. Why is it that the English and French versions of the amendment do not match up, and why does the English version provide for a 1,095-day period while the French version provides for a 15-day period? Do you have a stronger preference for francophones or anglophones when it comes to the acquisition of Canadian citizenship, senator?
Thank you for the question.
People who know me know full well that English Canadians and French Canadians are equal in my eyes. It was probably a typing error that will not take long to correct —
Senator Housakos, if I may, I’d like to say something.
As a rule, the lines don’t always match up, but when we compare both versions, they are similar. It is important to refer to the full version for the purpose of comparison.
I wanted to correct you, Senator Housakos. That is not an error.
I imagine that the government leader received a version that differs from the one presented in this chamber, as happens from time to time.
Would you take another question? Thank you.
I see that, on the previous line of the French version of the bill, it says “mille quatre-vingt-,” the missing number “quinze” appearing on the next line.
Your group proposed an amendment to the House of Commons that included three components: three years of residency in Canada in the five years preceding birth, knowledge of either official language and passing a security screening.
Am I to understand that your group now considers that a security screening and knowledge of either official language is no longer necessary?
Senator Dalphond, just to clarify, I’m talking about 1,095 days over five years, not 10 years, not 30 years, no more, no less. This is very clearly stated in the amendment.
We also have to remember that, for several years now, one of the important features of immigration and citizenship has been respect for Canada’s official languages. There’s a scoring system for candidates who speak French or English, especially on the French side for Quebec. There’s an agreement in place with the Government of Quebec regarding immigration that must be respected.
Every person who applies to immigrate to Canada or obtain citizenship must absolutely pass a security screening. This isn’t in my amendment, but this is something that exists in immigration and is assumed.
My amendment specifically aims to change a principle in the bill whereby a person must remain in Canada for 1,095 days, but that’s over an indefinite period. It isn’t defined clearly. I want a clear definition, namely 1,095 days over the past five years.
Finally, all the other elements that are in the bill will be respected by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada. With regard to bilingualism and security screening, no one wants to change that; it’s not an issue, senator.
The committee evidence shows that your colleagues in the House of Commons stressed the fact that it was unacceptable for a person born outside of Canada who has lived in Canada for 1,095 days not to prove that he or she is proficient in French or English, or not to be tested on his or her knowledge of Canadian culture, and complete a security screening. Your amendment today is much more limited than the one by your colleagues in the House of Commons. Am I to understand that you disagree with your colleagues in the House of Commons, and you think that they were asking too much? Have you decided to be more reasonable today and ask for less?
Senator Dalphond, for an independent senator, you seem really concerned about what goes on in the House of Commons. We, the Conservatives in the Senate, are not so concerned about what goes on in the other place. Our concerns centre on our responsibilities in this place, as senators, and I invite you to take up this principle with us.
Will Senator Housakos accept a question?
Absolutely.
I have a question about Canadians who are born overseas, and then they move and perhaps live in Canada most of their life, but perhaps they work in the diplomatic service, as some of our esteemed members have. Diplomatic appointments can be as lengthy as four years. That would mean they did not live in Canada for 1,095 days during a three-year period over the previous five years.
How would exceptions be made for people in this type of a situation? Conceivably, after a four-year appointment, they might move back to Canada or they could be appointed to another country. And in addition to that, there are people who work overseas yet have lived most of their life in Canada, but perhaps it’s not during a direct five-year period prior to having a child overseas.
It is a good question. This bill can be confusing, senator. This bill does not apply at all in the case of what you are thinking of. I will break it down more simply.
My wife and I are both Canadian citizens born and raised here. For diplomatic or work reasons, if we go halfway around the world and live somewhere else while our children are born, then our children are automatically Canadian citizens. It has no impact. For any diplomat or bureaucrat working overseas, if they or their spouse is Canadian, their child becomes an automatic citizen.
Where this bill kicks in is if that child never repatriates and never comes back to Canada and gets married abroad. It applies to the third generation born overseas who has never come to Canada. For those diplomats, if their child is living in Thailand, for example, and has never set foot in Canada, that is where this bill starts to kick in and apply.
I think you have misunderstood my question. Perhaps that career diplomat was born overseas. Perhaps their parents were career diplomats. You or your wife were born overseas. You come back, live in Canada, spend time here and then you become a diplomat, so you are overseas and you have your children there, and you were born overseas but have been living in Canada for most of your working life or educational life. However, perhaps in that four-year period, you were not.
First, I believe there are exemptions in the immigration act for diplomats specifically. Again, I do not think that your question would apply to this particular bill.
It would apply to children who are born to Canadians. They receive their citizenship, and for their children to be passed on in that third-generation sequence, they would need to have some kind of connection here.
Again, to join the Canadian diplomatic corps and to pass a diplomatic corps test, you have to be a Canadian citizen residing here. The case that you are talking about is somebody born in, for example, Thailand but has never lived in Canada, yet they have Canadian citizenship and they apply to join the Canadian Foreign Service. I guarantee you they would not be allowed entry into the Canadian Foreign Service.
That is actually not what I said.
However, let’s say they are not diplomats. Let’s say they work for a Canadian company overseas, and they are working in Holland. They have perhaps been born overseas. They lived in Canada and received their education in Canada, but as an adult, they move and work for five years overseas. It is so limiting to say it has to be within a five-year period.
I am having difficulty understanding your question. Even now I am trying to repeat your language. Somebody is born here, raised here, goes overseas and lives overseas —
Would you like a clarification of the question, Senator Housakos?
I would love that.
Senator Ross, would you repeat the question, please?
I will try.
You spoke of you and your wife. Let’s say you were born to Canadian parents, but you were born overseas. Then they finished their service with whatever company they were working with or whatever work they were doing. They came back to Canada; they brought you with them. You were educated and brought up here.
However, as an adult, you decide to work maybe for five years for a corporation overseas — it might even be a Canadian corporation. You have children while you are there. They are born overseas. You are Canadian, although you were not born here, yet you have lived here, but not necessarily for 1,095 days in that five-year period. I am wondering why you want to limit it to a five-year period — three years out of five years.
I am using your example: If I had a child overseas and that child never came back to Canada at all, and if they had no connection to the country and spent 20 or 30 years away from Canada — I am trying, but I really don’t understand. I am trying, but I really do not understand or see the logic in it.
Do you have one more question, Senator Ross?
I will phrase this as a question, but perhaps if one of my colleagues understands what I am trying to say and could explain it in a better way to Senator Housakos, my question would be: Would you ask that question?
I see two senators standing. Is it for a question or on debate?
I am on debate. Honourable senators, I rise today on behalf of the Government Representative’s Office to speak in opposition to our honourable colleague’s proposed amendment to Bill C-3.
I want to start by thanking the chair of the Social Affairs Committee, the steering committee and the entire committee for their work. I want to thank Senator Arnot for his careful consideration of this bill, his work on it, his analysis and the work that he will do going forward. I speak on behalf of the Government Representative’s Office when I say that we want to help you get that work done.
I also want to thank Senator Youance for pinch-hitting today. We are grateful. You did a fantastic job.
Colleagues, this amendment would only add further barriers to citizenship — which I believe is the point Senator Ross was trying to make — which counters the very objective of this legislation before us. Under the Citizenship Act, there are three ways to acquire Canadian citizenship: birth in Canada; naturalization by immigrating to Canada and acquiring Canadian status; or descent, which is birth outside Canada to a Canadian citizen parent.
Bill C-3 amends the Citizenship Act in order to extend access to citizenship by descent beyond the first generation. Once passed, Bill C-3 would automatically confer citizenship by descent to all those born abroad to a Canadian parent before the coming-into-force date of the legislation.
For those born after the coming-into-force date, there will be a new framework governing citizenship by descent, where citizenship by descent can be passed on beyond the first generation only if the Canadian parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, defined as 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada.
Bill C-3 would also create a simplified process to renounce citizenship for people born before the coming into force who would automatically become citizens as a result of the bill but who do not wish to be Canadian.
The bill would further provide access to a direct grant of citizenship for persons born abroad and adopted by a Canadian citizen parent born abroad. As with biological descent, foreign-born parents of individuals adopted abroad after the coming into force of the bill will have to meet a substantial connection test.
More importantly, colleagues, Bill C-3 responds to a court ruling on unconstitutionality.
On December 19, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared unconstitutional key provisions from 2009 setting out the restriction to citizenship by December to the first generation born abroad.
These provisions provided that children born outside of Canada to a Canadian citizen beyond the first generation did not automatically acquire Canadian citizenship at birth. The court found that this first-generation limit contravened section 6 mobility rights and section 15 equality rights of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Consequently, without Bill C-3, Canadians would be able to pass on citizenship to their children in perpetuity, regardless of their connection to Canada.
The Government of Canada did not appeal the court’s ruling, because it agreed that the law as it currently stands has had unacceptable consequences for Canadians whose children were born outside the country.
Bill C-3 aims to strike a balance, establishing reasonable limits to automatic citizenship by descent while protecting the rights and privileges associated with Canadian citizenship. As the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lena Metlege Diab, stated before our Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology:
Bill C-3 ensures that a child born or adopted abroad by a Canadian with a substantial connection to this country has access to citizenship, no matter which parent passes it on or where the family lives. That substantial connection must be proven through physical presence in Canada for at least 1,095 days before the child’s birth or adoption.
She went on to say in French that Bill C-3 aims to ensure that no Canadian family is left behind in terms of citizenship because of outdated rules. It guarantees fair treatment, preserves equality and honours the generations of Canadians who have chosen to live abroad while maintaining their roots here, in their homeland.
Indeed, colleagues, Bill C-3 is designed to allow Canadian parents who give birth abroad to pass on citizenship to their children beyond the first generation as long as they can show that substantial connection to Canada, defined as the three years spent in Canada at any point before the child’s birth. This flexibility recognizes that Canadians living overseas can still maintain deep, genuine ties to Canada, even if their time here is spread across different stages of their lives.
The 1,095 days criterion was aligned with other parts of the Citizenship Act in terms of how someone could demonstrate a connection to Canada. It was designed to reflect the way that Canadian families live today. It gives them the flexibility to live their lives abroad and to continue to maintain a connection with Canada.
Senators, we are talking about citizenship by descent — for those born to Canadian parents abroad — versus the grant pathway where we are talking about foreign nationals who become permanent residents and pursue citizenship to become a Canadian citizen here in Canada.
By contrast, the proposed amendment would confine the 1,095 days, which is three years, to a single consecutive five-year window. Department officials have stated that such restrictions could likely create a new cohort of “Lost Canadians.” Many families who live abroad return regularly to Canada, maintaining community ties and spending significant time here but not necessarily packing all 1,095 days into a five-year span. In fact, some may have spent far more than three years in Canada overall, just not within the narrow time frame the amendment requires. By imposing that limit, we risk excluding parents who clearly have strong connections to Canada and preventing them from passing citizenship to their children by descent.
By way of example, officials noted scenarios whereby families living abroad who have children outside of Canada come back to Canada over the years — for example, visiting grandparents, aunts, uncles and connecting with their families here in Canada. They may not spend 1,095 days within five consecutive years in the country, but they take their love of this country abroad and continue to be global citizens as well as Canadian citizens.
That does not even account for all of those grandparents travelling to visit their children or grandchildren in other countries, as well.
Communication and connection are maintained in a variety of ways.
By enforcing that tight limitation on them, you may then exclude them from citizenship by descent or from being able to pass on citizenship through descent to their children. That, in turn, may create another cohort of “Lost Canadians.”
Given that there are two different pathways — one where they are born to Canadian citizens and one where foreign nationals become permanent residents — Bill C-3 allows additional flexibility to allow Canadians living abroad to pursue the opportunities and lifestyles they wish while knowing that they can still maintain a connection to Canada.
It is the government’s view that Bill C-3, as drafted, responds to the court’s ruling on unconstitutionality while providing flexibility. Canadians living abroad can and do maintain strong connections to our country. By restricting the time frame, we disregard the reality that many Canadians face and risk creating a new cohort of “Lost Canadians.”
For these reasons, the government does not support the amendment.
Canadian citizenship provides us all with a deep sense of belonging to the diverse and democratic country we all call home. I respectfully urge us to pass this legislation as is without further delay to limit prejudice to Canadians and to ensure a timely response to a ruling of unconstitutionality.
Colleagues, I thank you for your kind attention.
Are honourable senators ready for the question?
All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “nays” have it.
Is there agreement on the length of the bell?
Is leave granted for 30 minutes?
The vote will be held at 5:27.
Call in the senators.
