Bill C-3 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 5, 2025
- Debated in principleSept. 22, 2025
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 5, 2025
- Passed the second chamberNov. 19, 2025
- Became lawNov. 20, 2025
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime 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.
What it set out to do
On 5 June 2025, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship introduced Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) and it was given first reading. Bill C-3 amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things, (a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen; (b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth; (c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen; (d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s adoption; (e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not m…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
69% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,068 words introduced, 2,696 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent narrowed
The bill added a concrete 1,095-day physical-presence test to define the substantial connection required for citizenship after the first generation and inserted new deeming rules and a delayed coming-into-force mechanism. These changes replaced or qualified several of the original clauses that had left the connection test undefined.
- Inserted a physical-presence test that limits citizenship for children born abroad after first generation.
After: “neither of the person's parents who was a citizen was physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days before the person's birth”
- Added identical physical-presence limit for adopted children after first generation.
After: “neither of the person's adoptive parents who was a citizen was physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days before the person's adoption”
- Added new subsection deeming certain pre-enactment grants never to have been by way of grant.
After: “Citizenship other than by way of grant (6.2) A person referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(k) to (r)”
- Changed coming-into-force clause from immediate to order-in-council.
After: “This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses exact dates, numbered day counts, and exhaustive lists of statutory provisions to define citizenship transmission and loss. A few cross-references and the summary's phrase 'substantial connection' introduce minor interpretive work.
Open to argument
“had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth”
The summary uses this phrase, though the operative text later substitutes the concrete 1,095-day test.
Clear-cut
“physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days before the person's birth”
Supplies an objective, countable metric instead of a subjective standard.“by way of grant means by way of grant under this Act or under prior legislation, by way of acquisition under this Act or by way of resumption under prior legislation”
Provides a closed definition that removes ambiguity about the term's scope.“before January 1, 1947, the person made a declaration of alienage”
Pins the rule to a fixed historical date and a specific legal act.
Discretion. Virtually none; the amendments set fixed statutory conditions and leave no new powers to the Minister or Governor in Council.
Challenging the law itself. The text employs precise dates, lists and numeric thresholds that are unlikely to be found vague or overbroad under Charter s. 7 or s. 15.
Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute the factual application of the 1,095-day rule or the historical status of a parent, but the statutory language itself leaves little room for interpretive argument.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.