Lost Canadians bill gets royal assent after years of parliamentary battles

Will be interesting to see the actual take-up and to that effect, IRCC needs to resume regular reporting of citizenship proofs. Dispiriting that the government did not accept the annual public reporting amendment which, unlike other proposed amendments by the Conservatives and Bloc, did not fundamentally change the Bill.

Have a data request into IRCC for any analysis of the 4,200 pending applications and will share when received:

A bill allowing Canadians born outside the country to pass on their citizenship to future generations born abroad gained royal assent on Thursday, after years of parliamentary and judicial battles. 

The legislation, which cleared its final parliamentary stage in the Senate Wednesday night, reinstates rights of Lost Canadians and reverses 2009 changes made to the Citizenship Act by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, which stripped descendants of Canadians born abroad of their automatic right to citizenship. 

The government predicts tens of thousands of Lost Canadians could benefit from the change, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates about 115,000 could gain citizenship….

Source: Lost Canadians bill gets royal assent after years of parliamentary battles

Feds helped push through citizenship for English soccer player in time to join Canadian squad

So let me get this straight.

While Minister Diab was making the case this Monday for passing C-3 quickly to avoid the absence of legislation that “it will open it up so that citizenship by descent will have no limit, and that’s exactly what I think a lot of people don’t want,” the government was fast tracking citizenship for a soccer player who apparently did not meeting the substantial connection case of having a parent who met the 1,095 day residency requirement.

In other words, skipping a generation and taking advantage of the legislative vacuum.

Depending on your perspective, clever or hypocritical move (latter in my opinion):

He is not the first soccer player to fly a flag of convenience in the run up to the World Cup, nor is he the only foreign-born player on Canada’s national soccer team. 

But few will have left it so close to their first match for Canada to take the citizenship oath. 

The Canadian national soccer team’s newest recruit is Alfie Jones, a Bristol-born defender who plays for second-tier English team Middlesborough. 

On Monday he took the citizenship oath in time to play for Canada on Tuesday in a pre-World Cup friendly match against Venezuela. 

Jones’s application for Canadian citizenship – made possible because he had an Alberta-born grandmother – was pushed through with the help of a government minister and a senior public servant in time for Tuesday’s kick off. …

Source: Feds helped push through citizenship for English soccer player in time to join Canadian squad

C-3 Citizenship by Descent: Senate Report Observations

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to present its

As expected, sailed through without amendments. Observations focussed on inter country adoptees (more of an recognition and identify issue than a practical one, as adoptees would have to live in the province of adoption and thus meet the residency test) and the need for modernization of the Citizenship Act. No concern about the operational impact and the data gaps (unfortunately, as expected):

SECOND REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, November 6, 2025, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

ROSEMARY MOODIE

Chair

Observations to the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill C-3)

Bill C-3 represents meaningful progress in addressing injustices faced by many “Lost Canadians.” However, your Committee notes a continuing gap affecting some intercountry adoptees: children born abroad, adopted by Canadian parents living in Canada, and brought into the country through a rigorous and highly regulated adoption process governed by provincial/territorial laws and international obligations, including the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.

Your Committee therefore encourages the Government of Canada to undertake further study and consider targeted legislative reforms to ensure that all intercountry adoptees are treated equivalently to Canadian-born adopted children with respect to citizenship acquisition and transmission.

Your Committee observes that the Citizenship Act has become increasingly complex and difficult for Canadians to understand. Given the many piecemeal amendments over decades, the Act would benefit from comprehensive modernization, including the adoption of plain-language drafting techniques.

Simplifying the Act would enhance public understanding, reduce administrative burdens, and ensure that Canadians can more easily know and exercise their citizenship rights and responsibilities.

Your Committee notes that Bill C-3 resolves many long-standing inequities relating to Lost Canadians but does not fully address all categories of affected persons.

Your Committee therefore encourages further study to identify remaining gaps and to support the development of future legislation that ensures all Canadians — whether by birth, adoption, or descent — are treated with fairness, consistency, and dignity.

Source: C-3 Citizenship by Descent: Senate Report Observations

Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada 

Perhaps I am a bit thick, but parents of foreign-born adoptees have to commit to raising their adopted child in Canada and thus would most likely meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days within a five-year period.  

The direct route to citizenship for adoptees was in response to parental pressure to have a faster route than PR sponsorship. But making that choice meant the adopted child was considered the first generation born abroad, like any naturally born child born abroad.

Appears more a matter of identity and convenience rather than fundamental practicalities to me:

….Two lawyers specializing in citizenship have submitted a briefing paper to the Senate committee, which will consider Bill C-3 this week. They argue that the bill should exempt children adopted from abroad from the substantial-connection test. 

The paper’s co-author, Toronto lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who filed the successful constitutional challenge to the Citizenship Act on behalf of Lost Canadian clients, said it is “deeply unfair to the families of these children to treat them differently than children adopted domestically.”

“It also violates Canada’s international treaty obligations and the Charter,” he said in an e-mail. 

Its other author, immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff, suggested that unless Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada addresses the issue it could face a legal challenge. 

“IRCC is fully aware of the issue. Adoptive parents and MPs have been advocating on their behalf for years. We do not understand their reluctance to address this issue at this moment, when C-3 is before Parliament. Amending C-3 would avoid unnecessary litigation.”

Don Chapman, a leading advocate for Lost Canadians, who is giving evidence to the Senate committee this week, said, “I don’t want to leave any child behind.” 

But he expressed concern that amending the bill in the Senate may lead to it being held up when it returns to the Commons. …

Source: Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada

C-3 Citizenship: My Planned Remarks

It will be a long SOCI meeting, as the Senate is holding all testimony in an over 4 hour session. Given the other witnesses, I will be the only contrarian voice on the need for a five-year limit to meet the residency requirement and the need for annual reporting of citizenship proofs issued under C-3 provisions (which the House immigration committee recommended but the Liberals and NDP reverted to the original bill at third reading).

CBA and CILA submissions focus largely on adoptions, advocating for birth date of adoptees, not the adoption date). CBA argues against requiring a consecutive residency requirement but doesn’t acknowledge that this can be cumulative within a five year period and would likely still be Charter compliant (allowing, to use their example, for Disneyland holidays).

Given the compressed timelines due to the court deadline, and the witness list, unlikely that SOCI will recommend and changes to C-3.

My planned remarks below:

Link to meeting: Agenda

C-3 Senate Hearing 17 November: My Submission

My submission, focussing on the Liberal/NDP agreement to remove the recommendations by the House Immigration Committee is below.

While removal and the unlikely to withstand legal challenges to language, knowledge and security/criminality proposals makes sense, removal of a time limit of five-years to meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days does not.

More puzzling is the removal of the requirement for annual reporting on the number of persons reclaiming their citizenship. The Minister and officials appeared weak when discussing the numbers and expected impacts, underlying the need for IRCC to share this data on open data or annual reports as they will be collecting it anyway:

Globe editorial: There can’t be two types of Canadian citizen [C-3 citizenship by descent]

Very good Globe editorial assessing Conservative and Bloc amendments to C-3 and correctly distinguishing between the sound amendments of having a time limit of five-years to meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days and the requirement to have annual reporting on the number of persons claiming citizenship under the Bill’s provisions and the less sound amendments to require language and knowledge assessment and criminality/security checks that apply to new citizens, not those entitled to citizenship.

The Liberals and NDP removed the amendments at third reading. We will now see how the Senate deals with the Bill shortly, and whether it passes the original bill or provides some sober second thought and reinstates these two amendments:

…Last month, the Conservatives, supported by the Bloc, added an amendment in committee to change the requirement that in order to pass on citizenship, a foreign-born Canadian needs to spend 1,095 cumulative days in Canada before the child is born or adopted. The Conservative change would require the parent to spend 1,095 days in Canada within a five-year period. This revision makes sense, as it means these individuals have truly lived here, rather than just spent a few weeks at their grandparents’ cottage each summer. It demonstrates a more meaningful connection with Canada, and administratively, it will be easier to prove. 

The Conservative amendments would also require a report to Parliament annually on how many new citizens the bill creates. This is a sensible requirement. 

The problems lie with the Conservatives’ addition of an English or French language test, a security screening for criminal activity, and a citizenship test demonstrating knowledge of Canadian history. These requirements are similar to those needed by immigrants applying for citizenship, so it sounds logical – but it confuses the issue. 

Halt of ‘Lost Canadians’ bill could mean citizenship for thousands born to parents with no ties to Canada

Canadians by descent get their citizenship at birth based on their parents’ status. Presumably, under the Conservative rules, if these people applied as adults for citizenship certificates or passports and failed the tests, they could be stripped of their citizenship. Uyen Hoang, director-general of the citizenship branch at the Immigration Department, has warned that the tests would be “impossible to operationalize.” …

Source: There can’t be two types of Canadian citizen

Liberals, NDP bid to undo Harper-era rule on citizenship for Lost Canadians

The Liberals and NDP, along with government officials, are right to raise concerns regarding the amended Bill’s requirement for knowledge and language assessment along with security and criminality checks as these would likely not survive legal challenges.

However, there is no such impediment to the amendment requiring the residency requirement of 1,095 days within a five year period prior to the birth of a child. Nor is there any such impediment for requiring annual reports on the number of Canadians claiming their citizenship under the Bill’s provisions:

The Liberals and NDP are pushing for a citizenship bill to move forward without Conservative changes that would require security screening and language checks before children born abroad to foreign-born Canadians could qualify for a passport. 

Earlier this month, Conservatives, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, voted through a raft of changes to the government’s proposed legislation, known as Bill C-3. 

The bill aims to reverse a change by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2009 that stripped people born into this situation, who are often known as Lost Canadians, of their automatic right to citizenship.

But the Conservative amendments to the Liberal bill – expected to go to a vote on Monday – would make people aged 18 to 54 clear several hurdles in order to inherit Canadian citizenship, putting them on roughly even ground with immigrants seeking citizenship. 

They would have to pass an English or French language test, be subject to security screening to check for criminal activity, and pass a citizenship test demonstrating knowledge of Canadian history.

Bill C-3 requires Canadian parents born abroad to demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada before they can pass on citizenship to a child born outside the country. They would need to spend a cumulative 1,095 days – the equivalent of three years – in Canada before the birth or adoption of the child seeking citizenship. 

The Conservative changes would require the 1,095 days to be consecutively spent in Canada within five years, and not made up of a few weeks, months or days over many years. …

Source: Liberals, NDP bid to undo Harper-era rule on citizenship for Lost Canadians

Chapman: Bill C-3 corrects inequalities, brings Citizenship Act into compliance with the Charter

Written before the amendments made by the House immigration committee although I expect Chapman likely opposes all of the amendments based upon his previous writings and testimonies.

And in his criticism of the CPC and their procedural maneuverings, he neglects to acknowledge that the Liberal government and the NDP in previous parliaments poisoned the chalice by expanding the scope of the narrow S-245 to include removal of the first-generation cut-off, hardly an example of being “respectful of democratic institutions:”

…Last week, I watched the committee discussion with concern as the Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre returned to a familiar, dogmatic and troubling playbook—one that elevates fear over fact, and partisan rhetoric over responsible governance. Dismissing expert analysis, disregarding a clear judicial ruling, and inflaming public sentiment may deliver short-term political gain.

However, the long-term cost is steep: the steady erosion of the institutions that underpin our prosperity, our unity, and the rule of law itself.

Democracy depends not only on laws and courts, but on a shared commitment to uphold them. When a political party becomes comfortable with unequal treatment under the law, distorts public discourse, or refuses to acknowledge and correct its own mistakes—these are not isolated errors. They are signs of weakened accountability and declining leadership.

The moral and legal imperative to enshrine equal rights in the Citizenship Act is clear. Equality rights cannot be optional. Canadians must be cautious not to follow the troubling path of democratic backsliding visible else where. A decade ago, few would have predicted how quickly democratic norms in the United States would come under pressure. Institutional decline begins quietly—then accelerates. As with financial markets, trust builds slowly but can disappear overnight. 

And in politics, fear remains an expedient and dangerous currency—too often spent more readily than truth. Leadership of any party—indeed of any party—must be about more than electoral calculus. It must be rooted in principle—be respectful of democratic institutions, guided by evidence, and committed to the rights, dignity, and equality of all citizens.

Bill C-3 is a necessary step in that direction.

Source: Chapman: Bill C-3 corrects inequalities, brings Citizenship Act into compliance with the Charter

Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025): Interesting data requirement addition

Complete text of revised bill. Only part that struck my interest that had not been reported previously was the data provision:

26.1 (1) Within three months after the end of each fiscal year, the Minister must prepare a report for the previous year that sets out the number of persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), their countries of citizenship other than Canada, if any, their most recent country of residence and the provisions of this Act under which they are citizens.

(2) The Minister must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.”

Source: Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)