An Act to amend the Citizenship Act

How it changed on the way

50% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (237 words introduced, 232 passed).

substantial changeintent kept

The bill kept its original purpose of restoring citizenship lost in childhood through a parent's actions. Only formal assent details were added at passage.

• Inserted royal assent date and bill identifier after the session heading.

  Before: “First Session, Thirty-eighth Parliament, This enactment is designed to remedy the situation where a person has, as a child, lost their Canadian citizenship by law be- cause a parent of that person acquired the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada or renounced his or her Canadian citizenship.”

  After: “First Session, Thirty-eighth Parliament, ASSENTED TO 5th MAY, 2005 BILL S-2 This enactment is designed to remedy the situation where a person has, as a child, lost their Canadian citizenship by law be- cause a parent of that person acquired the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada or renounced his or her Canadian citizenship.”

How precisely it is written

preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard

The amendment uses a fixed historical date and two specific factual triggers to create a clear exception to an existing residency rule. No subjective language or official discretion appears in the operative text.

Clear-cut

• “before February 15, 1977”

  A single calendar date supplies an objective cutoff that leaves no room for argument about timing.

• “because a parent of that person ceased to be a citizen as a result of (a) acquiring the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada; or (b) renouncing his or her Canadian citi”

  Two exhaustively listed events tied directly to a parent's action create narrow, verifiable eligibility criteria.

Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials, or regulations; eligibility turns solely on the statutory facts stated in subsection (1.1).

Challenging the law itself. The provision is narrowly tailored to a closed class of historical cases and contains no vague terms that would support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. A person seeking the exception must simply prove the date of loss and the parent's specific act; the criteria are factual and leave little interpretive space for dispute.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.