# Bill C-3 vs the 2009 First-Generation Limit
Canada has rewritten its citizenship-by-descent rules twice in 16 years. Each rewrite restored one group of "Lost Canadians" while creating or leaving another. To understand what Bill C-3 actually does — and what it doesn't — you need the full picture of both reforms side by side.
Timeline of Canadian descent law
| Year | Law | What it did |
|---|---|---|
| 1947 | First Citizenship Act | Created modern Canadian citizenship; descent allowed but with several technical exclusions |
| 1977 | New Citizenship Act | Replaced 1947 act; allowed dual citizenship; removed forced renunciation of British subject status |
| 2009 | Bill C-37 | Restored pre-1947 Lost Canadians; introduced the first-generation limit |
| 2015 | Bill C-24 (Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act) | Tightened residence rules; revoked dual nationals' citizenship for terrorism (later partly repealed) |
| 2017 | Bill C-6 | Repealed C-24's harshest provisions |
| 2023 | Bjorkquist v. Canada | Ontario court declared the FGL unconstitutional |
| 2025 | Bill C-3 | Removed the first-generation limit (in force Dec 15, 2025) |
Bill C-37 (2009) — the partial fix
Bill C-37 restored Canadian citizenship to thousands of people retroactively, including:
- War-bride children — born in Europe to Canadian soldier fathers and European mothers between 1939 and 1947, who under the 1947 act often weren't recognized as Canadian.
- Pre-1977 oath-takers — naturalized citizens who had to formally renounce British subject status under earlier laws.
- Age-28 rule victims — people who became citizens automatically as Canadian-born-abroad children but lost it at age 28 if they didn't reaffirm (a rule abolished in the 1977 act, but with a transitional cohort caught in the gap).
- Various 1947 Act anomalies — people excluded by technical readings of the original Citizenship Act that didn't reflect Parliament's intent.
But in the same legislation, Parliament added the first-generation limit:
Citizenship by descent is limited to one generation born outside Canada. Subsequent generations born outside Canada to Canadian-citizen-born-abroad parents do not acquire citizenship by descent.
The FGL was meant to prevent indefinite descent. In practice, it created a new class of Lost Canadians: an estimated 170,000–200,000 second-generation-born-abroad people worldwide who logically should have been Canadian but weren't.
The Bjorkquist case
Seven plaintiff families took the FGL to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2023, arguing it violated the Canadian Charter:
- Section 6 (mobility rights) — Canadians abroad were effectively prevented from raising Canadian children abroad, a Charter-protected interest.
- Section 15 (equality) — born-in-Canada Canadian children of Canadian citizens had different rights from born-abroad Canadian children of Canadian citizens.
In December 2023, Justice Akbarali ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The federal government chose not to appeal. Instead, it committed to legislate a fix within Parliament's customary 12-month grace period.
That fix became Bill C-3.
Bill C-3 (2025) — the second-half fix
Bill C-3 was introduced in 2024, passed in spring 2025, and brought into force on December 15, 2025. Its substance is short:
- Repeals the first-generation limit. Citizenship by descent is no longer capped.
- Introduces a substantial-connection test for the parent: 1,095 days physical presence in Canada at any point before the child's birth.
- Restores affected pre-Dec-15-2025-born people automatically — they are deemed citizens retroactively from birth.
- Implementation timeline — IRCC began accepting CIT 0001 applications under the new rules on December 15, 2025; some edge-case adjudication guidance was finalized in early 2026.
Ready to Practice?
Put your knowledge to the test with 600+ practice questions and AI coaching.
Also available on mobile:
Side-by-side comparison
| Feature | C-37 (2009) | C-3 (2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Removed pre-1947 exclusions? | Yes | N/A (already done) |
| First-generation limit? | Created it | Removed it |
| Substantial-connection test? | No | Yes — 1,095 days for post-Dec-15-2025 births |
| Retroactive restoration? | Yes (pre-1947 cases) | Yes (2nd-gen-born-abroad and beyond) |
| Application form | CIT 0001 | CIT 0001 |
| Application fee | CA$75 (then) | CA$75 |
| Citizenship test required? | No | No |
Who each law restored — and who each left out
Restored by C-37 (2009)
- War-bride children
- Pre-1977 oath-takers
- Age-28 rule victims
- Various 1947 Act technical-exclusion cases
Created or left out by C-37
- Second-generation-born-abroad children
- Third+ generation born abroad
- Diplomats' grandchildren
- Diaspora professionals' grandchildren
- Adoptees of multi-generation-born-abroad parents
Restored by C-3 (2025)
- All groups left out by C-37 above
- Plus retroactive automatic citizenship for pre-Dec-15-2025 births
Still left out (or partly unresolved) in 2026
- Adoptees of multi-generation-born-abroad parents (section 5.1 interactions)
- Indigenous Canadians affected by separate Indian Act provisions
- Renouncers — former citizens who formally gave up citizenship; they need the resumption pathway (CIT 0301), not C-3 auto-restoration
- Children of post-Dec-15-2025 Canadians who never lived in Canada — the 1,095-day substantial-connection test bars them
- Some pre-1947 family-history cases in extremely complex situations
Why this matters for you in 2026
If you, your child, or your grandchild was born outside Canada and your family link has been blocked by either the pre-1947 anomalies or the FGL, the rules have changed in your favour twice in your lifetime. A "no" you got in 2010 is not authoritative in 2026.
Practical implications:
- Re-apply if you were previously denied. Federal Court has been favourable to Lost Canadian appeals since C-3 came into force.
- Don't assume your family's 'never been Canadian' is a final answer. Especially if a grandparent was Canadian and the chain ran through one or two generations born abroad.
- For families starting now: plan around the 1,095-day substantial-connection test if you want your future-born-abroad children to inherit citizenship. The 1,095 days do not need to be continuous and can be accumulated as PR or even temporary resident.
What might change next
Three areas under active discussion:
- Adoption-descent harmonization — to fully align section 5.1 (adoption) with the new descent rules under C-3.
- Indigenous citizenship pathways — separate negotiations with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit organizations on parallel restoration tracks.
- Long-overdue digital infrastructure — IRCC's processing systems are still mostly paper-driven for citizenship; modernization is on the multi-year plan but not committed.
Related reading
- [Bill C-3 & Lost Canadians: Complete Guide](/blog/bill-c3-lost-canadians-complete-guide)
- [Am I a Lost Canadian? Decision Tree for Bill C-3 Eligibility](/blog/am-i-a-lost-canadian-bill-c3)
- [How to Apply for Proof of Citizenship Under Bill C-3 (CIT 0001 Step-by-Step)](/blog/how-to-apply-citizenship-certificate-bill-c3)
- [Bill C-3 News Coverage: What Came Into Force on December 15, 2025](/blog/bill-c3-canadian-citizenship-by-descent-2026)
- [Canadian Citizenship Physical Presence: 1,095-Day Rule Explained](/blog/canadian-citizenship-physical-presence-requirement)
- [Free Canadian Citizenship Practice Test — 600+ questions, by chapter](/practice-test)
Sponsored
Ready to Practice?
Put your knowledge to the test with 600+ practice questions and AI coaching.
Also available on mobile:
Frequently Asked Questions
1Why did Parliament create the first-generation limit in the first place?
The 2009 reform balanced two pressures: restoring citizenship to thousands of pre-1947 Lost Canadians (a popular cause), while preventing what Parliament called 'indefinite descent' — the theoretical scenario where a Canadian's descendants could remain citizens forever even with no real connection to Canada. The FGL was the compromise. In hindsight, it solved a problem that didn't really exist (no other major democracy had observed runaway descent) while creating a new class of Lost Canadians.
2Who were the original Lost Canadians of the 2009 reform?
Several distinct groups: (1) **war-brides children** born to Canadian fathers stationed in Europe before 1947, (2) **post-1947 anomalies** caused by the 1947 Citizenship Act's interaction with later amendments, (3) **pre-1977 oath-takers** who had to renounce British subject status to become Canadian, (4) people who lost citizenship under the **age-28 rule** (later abolished). Bill C-37 fixed most of these — but caused new ones via the FGL.
3What was the Bjorkquist case?
*Bjorkquist v. Canada (2023)* was an Ontario Superior Court decision in which seven plaintiff families challenged the FGL under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice Akbarali ruled the FGL violated section 6 (mobility rights — Canadians abroad couldn't pass their citizenship freely) and section 15 (equality — distinguishing born-in-Canada vs born-abroad children of citizens). The federal government chose not to appeal, instead committing to legislate a fix. Bill C-3 was that fix, passed in 2024 and brought into force December 15, 2025.
4What's the practical difference between the 2009 and 2025 fixes?
**2009 (C-37)**: looked backwards — restored people excluded by past laws (especially pre-1947 cases). Did not address future cases of 2nd-generation-born-abroad children. **2025 (C-3)**: looks forwards and backwards — restores all 2nd-generation-born-abroad and beyond, retroactively for pre-Dec-15-2025 births, prospectively (with the 1,095-day test) for post-Dec-15-2025 births. Together, the two reforms cover most known categories of Lost Canadians.
5Are there still Lost Canadians not fixed by C-3?
Yes, several categories remain partly unresolved: (1) **Adoptees** of multi-generation-born-abroad parents — adoption rules under section 5.1 don't perfectly track the descent rules; (2) **Indigenous Canadians** affected by separate Indian Act enrolment provisions; (3) **Renouncers** who formally gave up citizenship before C-3 — they need the resumption process (CIT 0301), not automatic restoration; (4) **Some pre-1947 cases** in extremely complex family situations that even C-37 didn't fully fix; (5) **Substantial-connection test failures** post-Dec-15-2025 — children of Canadians who genuinely never lived in Canada for 1,095 days are blocked.
6Could the substantial-connection test be challenged the same way the FGL was?
It's possible but harder. The FGL was struck down because it created an absolute bar — born-abroad-to-born-abroad meant *no path*. The 1,095-day test is a *qualifying* requirement, not an absolute bar, and it has historical precedent (the same 1,095-day rule applies to naturalized citizens). Most constitutional lawyers think it would survive Charter scrutiny. That said, edge cases (e.g. children of military or diplomatic personnel who can't accumulate 1,095 days because of postings) may yet generate litigation.