Before Bill C-3, Canadian law generally allowed citizenship by descent for only one generation born abroad. In simple terms, a Canadian born in Canada could usually pass citizenship to a child born outside Canada. But a Canadian who had also been born abroad often could not automatically do the same for their own child. In Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, the court called this the “second-generation cut-off.”
That rule did not come from Bill C-3. It came from Bill C-37, which received royal assent on April 17, 2008, and the new law took effect on April 17, 2009. Official government materials from 2009 said the change was meant to protect the value of citizenship by limiting citizenship by descent.
What existed before the 2009 change
Before the 2009 amendments, the law was more flexible. The court in Bjorkquist explained that under the older 1977 framework, citizenship by descent could continue beyond the first generation born abroad, but people in later generations had to meet retention rules. The earlier model also used the idea of a substantial connection to Canada, rather than a hard stop after one generation abroad. Bill C-37 replaced that approach with a much stricter cutoff.
That history matters because it shows the old law was not always built around a blanket ban. Canada had previously used a more nuanced model, one that tried to connect citizenship to real ties to the country.
How the pre–Bill C-3 rule worked in real life
On paper, the old rule sounded simple. In real life, it caused serious problems.
The families in Bjorkquist had strong ties to Canada. Many had grown up here, studied here, worked here, and planned to live here again. Yet because they themselves were born abroad, their children could be denied automatic Canadian citizenship. The court described families whose children were left without status in Canada, families forced to separate while immigration paperwork was sorted out, and even a child born stateless in Hong Kong.
One of the strongest examples was the Maruyama family. They tried to settle in Canada, enrolled their children in school, and still ended up having to leave because the children had no secure legal status to remain permanently. Another example was the Chandler family, where children could not enter Canada as citizens and the father had to move ahead alone while the family waited to resolve immigration status.
Why the old rule was defended
The government defended the pre–Bill C-3 system by saying it promoted clarity, consistency, and the value of Canadian citizenship. In 2009, the government said the amended law would limit citizenship by descent while also addressing problems affecting some “Lost Canadians.”
Later, the court in Bjorkquist accepted that simplicity and consistency were legitimate goals. But it was not persuaded by the broader claim that a blanket cutoff was needed to protect citizenship itself. The judge found that the government had not shown real evidence of a serious problem that justified such a harsh rule.
The weak alternatives before Bill C-3
Before Bill C-3, families blocked by the first-generation limit still had a few possible routes. But those routes were uncertain.
A parent could try for a discretionary grant of citizenship under section 5(4) of the Citizenship Act. Or the family could try to sponsor the child for permanent residence and later citizenship. The problem was that these were not reliable fixes. The court said those alternatives were often slow, discretionary, and not satisfactorily effective in practice. In the evidence before the court, even IRCC handling errors had made things worse for some families.
So before Bill C-3, the system did not work like this: “your child is not a citizen automatically, but there is an easy backup process.” It worked more like this: “your child is not a citizen automatically, and now your family must enter a long and uncertain process.”
Why the old system ran into constitutional trouble
That is why the rule ended up in court. In Bjorkquist, the Ontario Superior Court held that the second-generation cut-off violated section 15 of the Charter because it created a lesser class of citizenship for Canadians born abroad. It also violated section 6 because it burdened Canadians’ ability to leave, remain in, and return to Canada while building family life abroad. The court did not find a breach of section 7.
The judge also stressed that the rule hit women especially hard. Pregnancy made the cost of the law immediate. A woman abroad could be pushed to choose between her health care, job, finances, and her child’s chance at Canadian citizenship.
What changed with Bill C-3
Bill C-3 later replaced that old framework. It received royal assent on November 20, 2025, and the new rules took effect on December 15, 2025. Parliament’s summary says the law now extends citizenship by descent beyond the first generation in some cases if the parent had a substantial connection to Canada before the child’s birth. Government guidance explains that, going forward, this connection is measured by 1,095 cumulative days in Canada before the birth or adoption.
So what was before Bill C-3? It was a citizenship regime shaped by Bill C-37, in force from 2009 onward, built around a strict first-generation limit. It replaced an older connection-based approach with a hard cutoff. And, as Bjorkquist eventually showed, it left many Canadian families carrying the burden of a rule the court found unconstitutional.
Sources
1. Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 ONSC 7152 (CanLII)
2. Parliament of Canada, Bill C-37 (39-2), LEGISinfo
3. Government of Canada, “Minister Kenney announces new citizenship law in effect” (April 17, 2009)
4. Government of Canada, “Changes to citizenship rules 2009 to 2015”
5. Parliament of Canada, Bill C-3 (45-1), LEGISinfo
6. Parliament of Canada, Bill C-3 Royal Assent text and summary
7. Government of Canada, “Bill C-3: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into effect”
8. Government of Canada, “Change to citizenship rules in 2025”
