Recently, I came across this Reddit thread: “Will I Qualify Under C-3?” (handy chart).

This Reddit thread does raise some good points, specifically, we do not know what the final version of the bill will look like, rather we simply know what is currently before Parliament, and it is best to apply under the temporary policy now (assuming you’re born before December 19, 2023).

But what is troubling about this post was the profile about who qualifies for Canadian citizenship by descent under Bill C-3. According to this post:

  • Gen 0 – born within what is now Canada (in any year) – can be dead or alive
  • Gen 1 – born outside what is now Canada (in any year) – can be dead or alive
  • Gen 2 – must have been born outside Canada AFTER 1947/1949*
  • Gen 3 – must have been born outside Canada AFTER 1947/1949* AND either their parent (Gen 2) or their grandparent (Gen 1) must be alive**
  • Gen 4+ – must have been born outside Canada AFTER 1947/1949* AND either their parent (Gen 3+) or their grandparent (Gen 2+) must be alive**

The post then states to follow the comment below, which states:

Yes, the 3rd Gen qualifies. More than two consecutive deceased ancestors is what breaks the chain under C-3. [Indeed, see later in this comment about the Gen 1 being alive in 2015 to gain citizenship and then dying.]

But as will be discussed below, this analysis is wrong.

Why this analysis is wrong?

The root of this problem is a misinterpretation of the proposed legislation, more specifically, s. 3(1.5) of Bill C-3, which states:

Citizen despite death of parent

A person who would not become a citizen under one of the paragraphs of subsection (1) for the sole reason that their parent or both their parent and their parent’s parent died before the coming into force of An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) is a citizen under that paragraph if that parent — or both that parent and that parent’s parent — but for their death, would have been a citizen as a result of the coming into force of that Act.

This analysis ignores the fundamental fact of statutory analysis: you cannot read individual sections in a vacuum. You must read the Act holistically and apply it to individual sections.

Per the Supreme Court of Canada in Rizzo v Rizzo Shoes Ltd (Re), 1998 1 SCR 27:

The words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament

Applying the Canadian rules of statutory interpretation to s. 3(1.5)

When you start reading the whole of Bill C-3 and the Citizenship Act together, one of the conclusions you will see is that the function of s. 3(1.5) is not to create a second-generation limitation (or whatever is described above), it is simply there to remove ambiguity about whether the death of the most recent Canadian ancestor would prevent a descendant from claiming Canadian citizenship.

One of the ways to conduct statutory interpretation is to look at the specific text chosen by Parliament and apply it to the full relevant context. See Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 118:

the language chosen by the legislature in light of the purpose of the provision and the entire relevant context

When you look at the text, yes, it says parent and parent of parent, but something else stands out – the section is almost identical to a series of sections under s. 3(1.1-1.4) of the current Citizenship Act.

Take for example s. 3(1.1).

Citizen despite death of parent

A person who would not become a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (g) or (h) for the sole reason that, on the coming into force of this subsection, his or her parent — referred to in one of those paragraphs — is deceased, is a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (g) or (h) if that parent, but for his or her death, would have been a citizen under paragraph (1)(f), (i) or (j).

Since the language is so similar and it follows right after s. 3(1.4), one of the conclusions you can draw is that s. 3(1.5) should be interpreted similarly to s. 3(1.1-1.4).

Now there are two ways to interpret s. 3(1.1-1.4):

  1. It is designed to remove ambiguity about whether the death of the parent would prevent you from claiming Canadian citizenship; or
  2. We cannot pass on Canadian citizenship beyond the first-generation.

But isn’t that also the first-generation limitation?

In fact, I think that’s how Reddit is interpreting s. 3(1.1-1.4). But that’s not the first-generation limit. The first-generation limitation is found later in the Act. More specifically under s. 3(3) of the Citizenship Act:

Not applicable — after first generation

Paragraphs (1)(b), (f) to (j), (q) and (r) do not apply to a person born outside Canada (a) if, at the time of his or her birth, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs;

…

So, no, s 3(1.1-1.4) this is not the first-generation limit. If s. 3(1.1-1.4) were meant to be the first-generation limit, there was no need for an additional s. 3(3).

But isn’t that irrelevant because the first-generation limit prevented citizenship from passing on beyond the first-generation?

No, in fact there was one specific way that a person could claim Canadian citizenship in the second or subsequent generation: a Crown Service exception. The way the Crown Service exception was applied to s. 3(1.1-1.4) provides an explanation for why s. 3(1.5) is not a new second-generation limit.

According to the Reddit post’s analysis, under s. 3(1.1) if a Crown Service employee had died before 2014 and he/she never became a Canadian citizen in his/her lifetime, then any grandchildren of that Crown Service employee would not be Canadian.

But that would lead to an absurd outcome in which this section would effectively frustrate the will of Parliament. One of the reasons the Crown Service exception existed was to deal with the situation of war brides whose husbands died in World War I or World War II and their children were denied the benefits of British Nationality or Canadian citizenship under the Naturalization Act, 1914 and Citizenship Act, 1947.

As such, the first-generation limit was specifically designed to not apply to children and grandchildren of Canadian war brides. That specific purpose could not be frustrated by s. 3(1.1-1.4).

In fact, that is how legislation has been applied in most cases. Consider this example:

Michael is born in Calgary, AB in 1921.

In 1939, at the age of 18, he enlists with the Canadian Army.

In 1941, Michael meets Holly – a US citizen.

In 1942, while Michael is serving in the Canadian Army in England, Holly gives birth to Michael’s son, Chester, in Nebraska.

Chester is born out of wedlock and Michael is the father.

Chester is deemed to be a US citizen under the XIV Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Michael is listed as Chester’s father on his birth certificate.

Michael is killed in action in 1944.

Chester does not become a Canadian citizen on January 1, 1947.

In 1987, Chester’s spouse gives birth to a child, in California.

Chester dies in 2010.

Would Chester’s Child be Canadian?

If you use the analysis provided by this Reddit post, the answer is no because Michael died before Chester was born and both Michael and Chester died before 2014, so Chester’s child would not qualify.

But that has not been the practice today – rather the law today will be applied like so:

Chester having been born before January 1, 1947, is deemed to be a Canadian citizen as of January 1, 1947, under s. 3(1)(q) which reads:

Subject to his Act, a person is a citizen if, the person was born outside Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador before January 1, 1947 to a parent who became a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, and the person did not become a citizen on that day

For greater certainty, even though his father passed before January 1, 1947, he is a Canadian citizen today under s. 3(1.3):

A person who would not become a citizen under paragraph (1)(q) for the sole reason that his or her parent died before January 1, 1947 and did not become a citizen on that day under the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, is, nonetheless, a citizen under that paragraph if his or her parent would have been a citizen if that Act had come into force immediately before their death and the date referred to in the provisions of that Act that set out the requirements to be met to become a citizen had been the day of that coming into force rather than January 1, 1947.

For greater certainty s. 3(7)(k) states that the effective date of Canadian citizenship is January 1, 1947:

Despite any provision of this Act or any Act respecting naturalization or citizenship that was in force in Canada at any time before the day on which this subsection comes into force a person referred to in paragraph 1(o) or (q) is deemed to be a citizen under that paragraph as of January 1, 1947.

As for Chester’s child, he/she would be deemed to be a Canadian citizen under s. 3(1)(b):

the person was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 and at the time of his birth one of his parents, other than a parent who adopted him, was a citizen.

But the first-generation limitation under s. 3(3)(a) should have estopped him/her from claiming Canadian citizenship:

Paragraphs (1)(b), (f) to (j), (q) and (r) do not apply to a person born outside Canada if, at the time of his or her birth, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs;

But because his/her grandfather was in the Service of the Canadian Armed Forces at the time of his/her father’s birth, under s. 3(5) the first-generation limit is deemed inoperative in this case and therefore there is no estoppel:

Subsection (3) does not apply to a person born to a parent who, at the time of the person’s birth, was employed outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person;

As for the s. 3(1.3) line about parents, the interpretation for the children is expanded to include grandparents. It also includes great grandparents if, by some opportune mechanism, there are two generations of individuals who were in the service of the Canadian Crown.

Accordingly, due to the similarities between s. 3(1.5) of Bill C-3 and the other sections s. 3(1.1-1.4) in the Citizenship Act, the only reasonable interpretation is that this is meant to assist in interpretation, and it would continue to be applied to parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on. It is not designed to stop people from getting Canadian citizenship based on the generation of the parent and when that parent died.

Why are you so certain?

Experience. That is how the law has been applied in the past and continues to be applied today.

Under the Crown Service exception, we have been able to obtain Canadian citizenship in the second or subsequent generation, even when the grandparent died long before the relevant sections, restoring their Canadian citizenship, came into effect.

Applying the Changes to Bill C-3

When you look at Bill C-3, the biggest change is in s. 3(3), as the bill entirely repeals the first-generation limitation under s. 3(3) and replaces it with a new first-generation restriction under s. 3(3).

What is quite illuminating, as to the intention of Parliament, is this one line:

Paragraph (1)‍(b) does not apply to a person born outside Canada on or after the day on which An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025) comes into force (“emphasis added”)

Based on the above, one of the things you can take away is that Parliament only intends to apply a restriction to citizenship by descent to those who are born at least one day after Bill C-3 is proclaimed into law.

Anyone born before this will not be subject to a generational limit and s. 3(1.5) will be expanded to include parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and so on. Said parents, grandparents, great grandparents,  will be included, even if they died before 2014, or when Bill C-3 is proclaimed into law.

What’s the real issue

The real issue is the simple fact that the Citizenship Act – especially s. 3 – is a complicated mess. It is full of references to long dead legislation, double negatives and unclear language.

In 2008, the Canadian Senate recommended that the government consider repealing the Citizenship Act entirely, and consider adopting a new, clear and straightforward Citizenship Act. Unfortunately, once again the government has chosen not to go in this direction and has instead simply added a series of amendments to this Act which only add to the confusion.

 

As I said to the Canadian Senate, a person should not need a law degree to determine if they are Canadian.