Bill C-8 · 43th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 22, 2020
- Debated in principleDec. 10, 2020
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 3, 2021
- Passed the second chamberJune 10, 2021
- Became lawJune 20, 2021
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
39% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (313 words introduced, 309 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill's core text and purpose stayed identical from introduction to royal assent. Only header dates, session numbers and a few procedural references were updated.
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill directly substitutes one fixed block of oath text for another and sets an objective coming-into-force date. No subjective standards, undefined terms or discretionary powers appear.
Clear-cut
“The schedule to the Citizenship Act is replaced by the schedule set out in the schedule to this Act.”
It mandates an exact textual substitution rather than authorizing further changes by regulation or official discretion.“This Act comes into force on the day after the day on which it receives royal assent.”
It uses a clear, calendar-based trigger with no conditions or ministerial discretion.“including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples”
It incorporates a pre-existing constitutional phrase verbatim without adding qualifiers such as 'likely to' or 'in the opinion of'.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the oath wording and commencement date are fixed by the statute itself.
Challenging the law itself. The amendment is a narrow textual substitution that engages no new vague standards and therefore offers little basis for a successful vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Whether the prescribed oath text has been used is an objective factual question that leaves almost no room for interpretive 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.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.