What are the key provisions of Bill C-3 in Canada?

Executive Summary

Bill C-3 proposes targeted reforms to the Citizenship Act that primarily remove the historic “first‑generation” limit, create a substantial‑connection test for passing citizenship to children born or adopted abroad, and restore status to people long described as “Lost Canadians.” Parliamentary and secondary summaries show consensus on the bill’s three core aims — expanding citizenship by descent, clarifying rules for internationally adopted children, and restoring citizenship to affected descendants — while commentators disagree on implementation details and equity implications ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

1. What advocates and the government say the bill will fix — a concise claim map

Bill C-3 is framed as a remedy for long‑standing statutory gaps that prevented some Canadians born abroad or their children from holding or passing on citizenship. The bill’s primary claims are: elimination of the first‑generation limit so that Canadian parents born abroad can pass citizenship to children born outside Canada; a new “substantial connection” threshold requiring 1,095 days (three years) of physical presence in Canada before a child’s birth or adoption; explicit provisions extending citizenship to internationally adopted children when parents meet that substantial‑connection test; and restoration pathways for people historically excluded by pre‑2009 rules ^{[2] [1] [4]}. These are the recurring, central elements across government and media summaries ^{[2] [1]}.

2. How the “substantial‑connection” test would operate and who it affects

Multiple sources describe the same operative metric: a cumulative 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada within a specified period prior to a child’s birth or adoption to show sufficient ties to confer citizenship by descent. That threshold is positioned as a middle ground between automatic transmission and unfettered registration: it allows second‑generation Canadians born abroad to qualify if a parent demonstrates meaningful residence in Canada. Analysts note the standard is administrable but contested: proponents argue it prevents untethered transmission of citizenship, while critics warn it may disadvantage expatriate families, seasonal workers, and those who left Canada for compelling reasons ^{[5] [6] [4]}.

3. Restoration and the “Lost Canadians” cohort — scope and limits

The bill aims to restore citizenship to people and descendants who lost or never acquired citizenship due to historical legislative rules — the so‑called “Lost Canadians.” Government summaries and media accounts indicate the restoration is not unconditional: it targets those who “would be citizens today but for the first‑generation limit or outdated rules” and appears to use administrative pathways rather than blanket automatic conferral for all descendants ^{[2] [1]}. Advocacy groups and legal commentators highlight that while many will be reinstated, others may still face eligibility hurdles tied to the substantial‑connection requirement or documentary proof of descent and residency, leaving some disputes unresolved ^{[5] [7]}.

4. Additional procedural tests, age bands and administrative checks

Several summaries identify ancillary requirements that apply to adult applicants: language and knowledge testing for applicants aged 18–55, and standard security and criminality screening for adult applicants to ensure admissibility under modern citizenship rules. These procedural layers mirror existing citizenship application norms and aim to balance restored access with contemporary integrity safeguards. Critics point to potential hardships for older restoration applicants or those from jurisdictions with limited documentation, warning that procedural tests may impose new barriers even as substantive eligibility expands ^{[5] [7]}.

5. Parliamentary timing, judicial pressure, and legislative status

Parliamentary records and legislative trackers show Bill C-3 progressed through House stages and was under Senate committee consideration as of November 6, 2025, with votes recorded at earlier stages. Media reporting cited a court deadline of November 21 in relation to litigation over citizenship exclusions, making the bill’s timetable politically and legally sensitive ^{[3] [5]}. The Library of Parliament and LEGISinfo entries confirm the bill’s text and legislative history, while secondary outlets and immigration advisers provide interpretive summaries of likely administrative impact once royal assent is achieved ^{[8] [1]}.

6. Where analysts disagree and what remains unanswered

Sources converge on the bill’s central goals but diverge on equity, implementation, and edge cases. Government communications and some legal summaries emphasize closure of historical injustices and clearer rules for adoptees and expatriates. Other analyses warn the substantial‑connection test and standard application requirements could reintroduce barriers for vulnerable applicants — including internationally adopted children, long‑absent descendants, and those affected by past gender‑based citizenship discrimination. The legislative text provides mechanisms for restoration and descent, but practical outcomes will hinge on implementing regulations, evidentiary standards, and administrative discretion yet to be finalized ^{[2] [5] [6]}.