The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration met to study Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2025, which addresses the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent following a court ruling. The first panel featured Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Lena Metlege Diab and senior officials Catherine Scott, Uyen Hoang, and Erika Schneidereit. The second panel included witnesses Michael Bonner, Don Chapman, and Jason Jacques with Louis Perrault.
Minister Diab stated that Bill C-3 is a necessary response to the December 2023 Ontario Superior Court ruling that struck down the first-generation limit as unconstitutional, with a November 20 deadline for remedial legislation. She argued the bill strikes a balance by requiring a substantial connection to Canada—defined as 1,095 cumulative days of presence—for a Canadian parent born abroad to pass citizenship to a child born abroad, and it restores citizenship to remaining lost Canadians. She emphasized that volumes are expected in the tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, based on past experience with similar amendments and interim measures that received just over 4,200 applications between January 2024 and July 2025, and that the bill does not require security checks or language tests because it treats citizens by descent consistently with other citizens by birthright.
Catherine Scott explained that the 1,095 cumulative days requirement is similar to the physical presence requirement for naturalized citizens but offers flexibility for families with non-consecutive stays, such as for university or summer visits. Uyen Hoang clarified that the bill automatically grants citizenship to children already born to a Canadian parent beyond the first generation, while future children will require the parent to demonstrate 1,095 days of presence, and noted that most affected individuals are minors born after 2009, deemed low risk for security purposes. Erika Schneidereit confirmed that the court's ruling was based on charter violations of mobility rights under section 6 and equality rights under section 15.
Michael Bonner, from the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, argued that Canadian citizenship must be valued more highly and that the bill risks extending citizenship to people with little connection to Canada, potentially exacerbating citizenship tourism. He criticized the 1,095-day threshold as insufficient to demonstrate a substantial connection and recommended adding language proficiency and citizenship test requirements to restore public confidence in the immigration system, though he acknowledged the need to address injustices for lost Canadians.
Don Chapman, representing Lost Canadians, stressed that Bill C-3 is about citizenship rights, not immigration, and is required by the charter and court rulings, including a 1997 Supreme Court decision that barred background checks for birthright citizenship. He urged the committee to pass the bill without delay, noting that it corrects historic gender discrimination and statelessness, and argued that concerns about security or costs are misplaced because lost Canadians have a constitutional right to citizenship, and past similar amendments saw only about 20,000 applicants over 16 years.
Jason Jacques, Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, presented the PBO's cost estimate of $20.8 million over five years for Bill C-3, affecting an estimated 115,000 people, based on a Statistics Canada study of the Canadian diaspora. He noted the estimate focuses on application processing costs and does not include broader social or health care impacts, and offered to update the analysis if the committee requests it. Louis Perrault added that the department told the PBO it had no internal estimates of affected numbers, and that the 115,000 figure could vary by half or more depending on assumptions.
The committee also heard procedural exchanges, including points of order about speaking time and interruptions, but no motions or votes were recorded during the witness testimony.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.