Bill C-3 and citizenship by descent: what the law actually does

If you got a citizenship certificate through Bill C-3, or you're trying to figure out whether you or your child qualifies under the new rules, you've probably run into a lot of noise. Some of it is about the law itself. A lot of it, lately, is about a separate administrative review that landed in some people's inboxes in June 2026. The two things are connected, but they are not the same. This guide separates them.

The short version: Bill C-3 changed who is a Canadian citizen by descent. It is in force. It was not struck down, repealed, or paused. What happened in June is that the immigration department asked a limited number of people who already received certificates to surrender them while it re-examines the documents behind their files. That review is administrative, not an accusation of fraud, and not a formal revocation.

This is general information, not legal advice. If you received a letter or you're unsure how the rules apply to your family, consult a licensed Canadian immigration lawyer or RCIC about your specific file.

What Bill C-3 actually changed

For years, Canadian citizenship by descent stopped at the first generation born abroad. If you were a Canadian citizen born outside Canada, you generally could not automatically pass citizenship to a child also born outside Canada. That was the "second-generation cut-off" written into section 3(3) of the Citizenship Act.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that cut-off unconstitutional. The case is Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 ONSC 7152, decided December 19, 2023 by Justice Akbarali. The court found the rule violated the Charter, specifically the mobility and equality guarantees in sections 6 and 15. The declaration of invalidity was suspended to give Parliament time to write a fix. We cover that ruling in more depth in our guide to the second-generation cut-off and the Bjorkquist decision.

That fix is Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act. It received Royal Assent on November 20, 2025 and came into force on December 15, 2025. In place of the old cut-off, it sets up a "substantial connection" test. The idea is straightforward: a Canadian-born parent can pass citizenship to a child born abroad if that parent has built a real, measurable tie to Canada before the child arrives.

How is that tie measured? By physical presence. Under the new rule, a Canadian-born parent needs 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada before the child's birth or adoption. That's three years' worth of days, though they don't have to be consecutive. The Bill C-3 policy page lays out the mechanics in more detail, and if you want to estimate where you stand, our citizenship presence calculator can help you tally days before you commit to anything.

One important point of timing. Between the Bjorkquist ruling and Bill C-3 coming into force, the government ran interim measures. Announced March 13, 2025 and expanded March 20, 2025, they let some people apply for discretionary citizenship grants under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act. Those interim measures expired on December 15, 2025, the same day Bill C-3 took over. If your situation touched that window, the path you took may matter.

The June 2026 certificate review, and why it isn't a revocation

Here's where the confusion starts. Over the weekend of roughly June 13 to 15, 2026 (sources differ on the exact date, so confirm against your actual letter), the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship, Peggy Sun, emailed some people who had received Bill C-3 descent certificates. The message, as reported, was that the recipient "may not be entitled to hold a Canadian certificate of citizenship," and asked them to surrender the certificate while their file is re-examined.

Read that carefully, because the wording matters. This is a review-and-surrender request, not a revocation. According to reporting from CBC and the Globe and Mail, the government has been explicit that these reviews are not revocations. The Registrar reportedly wrote that she had "reasonable grounds to believe" a status was "not valid," and the stated reason was documentary: applications had not included proof "from the original source authorities," such as civil registries or vital statistics offices. If the review confirms entitlement, the certificate is returned.

So nobody in this group has been accused of lying. That distinction is the whole point, and it's worth being precise about the vocabulary that's floating around:

• Surrendered means you've been asked to hand the certificate back during the review. The department keeps it while it checks the file.
• Under review is the department's own framing. The status question is open, not decided against you.
• Suspended is media shorthand. It's a useful word for headlines, but no official source has stated the precise legal status of affected people during the review, so don't assume your status is "gone."
• Revoked is something else entirely. A formal revocation under section 10 of the Citizenship Act requires fraud or false representation and runs through the Federal Court with full procedural protections. That is not what's happening here.

Because the difference is easy to blur, we wrote a fuller breakdown in can Canada revoke citizenship by descent? and a separate piece on what suspension actually means for your passport, work, and travel. On that last point, be careful: no source confirms how the review affects passports, employment, or travel, so don't assume either way. Confirm against official IRCC channels and your own letter.

The instrument behind the surrender request has been reported as section 26(1) of the Citizenship Regulations, the Registrar's "issued in error" power, which carries weaker safeguards than a section 10 revocation. Treat that as secondary commentary rather than gospel. No verified copy of the letter has been published confirming it, so verify the legal basis against your actual notice.

Why the documents, not the bloodline

The objection in these reviews is about evidence quality, not whether someone genuinely has a Canadian ancestor. As reported, the problem is that some applications leaned on compiled genealogy rather than certified records from source authorities, and didn't explain why originals weren't available.

The Minister responsible, Lena Metlege Diab, defended the review in the House of Commons. Her framing was blunt: having a Canadian ancestor doesn't make you automatically eligible, and applicants must prove the link at each generation. She put it plainly:

"Genealogy websites are not enough."

That single line captures the department's position. A printout from Ancestry.ca or FamilySearch is a starting point, not primary proof. The department wants certified vital records: birth, marriage, and death registrations from provincial or territorial vital statistics offices, civil registries, and archives. This is also why some families are baffled. As Toronto lawyer Sara Pesko noted, it was "bizarre" that adults received letters while their children, on the same family applications with the same evidence, did not.

If you want to understand the difference between the documents at play here, our explainer on the citizenship certificate versus proof versus citizenship status is a good companion. The certificate is a document. Your underlying entitlement, if it exists, comes from the law and the facts, not from the paper itself.

It's worth saying plainly that lawyers have been critical of the process. Montreal lawyer Lisa Middlemiss argued the department should have investigated before issuing certificates, not after. Others, including Maureen Silcoff and Lost Canadians campaigner Don Chapman, called the approach unprecedented and troubling. The political response has been loud too: NDP MP Jenny Kwan sent an open letter on June 16, 2026 demanding answers and asking the government to halt adverse action until reviews finish. As of June 17, 2026, no court challenge has been confirmed filed, though some affected people are reportedly weighing one. The broader "lost Canadians" backdrop is covered in our lost Canadians explainer.

If you received a letter, here's how to think about it

First, breathe. This is an active legal matter that will likely take months, not days. There is no published response deadline, so don't let panic drive a rushed decision.

A few practical steps, grounded in what's been reported:

• If you have a paper certificate and you're asked to return it, returning it is what's being requested. An electronic certificate may have nothing physical to surrender. Keep copies of everything either way.
• Gather certified records from source authorities. That means provincial and territorial vital statistics offices, civil registries, and archives. It does not mean Ancestry.ca or FamilySearch screenshots used as primary proof.
• If an original genuinely doesn't exist, get a "letter of no record" from the relevant authority and assemble properly sourced alternatives: census records, baptismal records, hospital or midwife birth records, land deeds, immigration records, even boat manifests.
• Write down why the originals weren't available. Per IRCC's reported May 26, 2026 response in the House, alternative evidence assessed on a balance of probabilities can be acceptable if it's properly sourced. The checklist form CIT 0014 allows "any other evidence" of a parent's Canadian citizenship.
• Submit through the IRCC portal or a licensed lawyer or consultant, and keep your own copies of the full package.
• Consider Federal Court judicial review. Procedural-fairness arguments are central to the criticism of this process, and a lawyer can tell you whether that path fits your file.

For a fuller walkthrough, see how to respond to an IRCC citizenship review and get legal help and, if you're worried about statelessness, the protections against statelessness during a citizenship suspension. Parents trying to sort out a child's status under the new test should start with our child citizenship by descent parent guide.

One more thing on scale, because the numbers get mangled. Between December 15, 2025 and March 31, 2026, IRCC issued 4,075 descent certificates under Bill C-3, roughly half to people born in the United States. That figure is certificates issued, not letters sent. The number of review letters is disputed and small by comparison, described as "a few dozen" or "a limited number" by the minister's office, while at least one lawyer put it at "a couple hundred." The exact count hasn't been disclosed, so treat any specific number with caution.

As of June 17, 2026, there is no dedicated canada.ca page about the June action. The only official page that speaks to Bill C-3 itself is the department's rules-for-2025 changes page, and the Bjorkquist decision is public on CanLII. For the consolidated, regularly updated picture, our hub on the 2026 citizenship certificate review pulls the threads together, and the broader citizenship section covers the rest of the process.

The law and the review are moving on different tracks. Bill C-3 is settled statute. The certificate review is an administrative dispute that will probably be sorted out in court. Knowing which is which is the first step to handling your own situation calmly.

This is general information, not legal advice. Citizenship outcomes turn on the specific facts of your file and on documents only you can see. Before you act on anything here, including surrendering a certificate or responding to a letter, consult a licensed Canadian immigration lawyer or RCIC about your specific situation, and verify everything against your actual letter and official IRCC channels.