Especially for those who are called “lost Canadians”—those born abroad to Canadian parents but deprived of citizenship due to legal malpractice. Now that Parliament has passed the bill and received royal assent, an important legal gap has been filled, but the legislation has also raised several new questions, especially the complications surrounding intercountry adoption that remain.
Unconstitutional law and needed reform
The 2009 law included a requirement that if Canadian parents were themselves born abroad, they could only transfer citizenship to their children if the child was born in Canada. This law was declared unconstitutional by an Ontario court in 2023, as it affected thousands of families, including Canadians living abroad who faced unfair obstacles to their children’s citizenship.
Under the new law, citizenship can now be passed down from generation to generation—provided that the parents have spent a total of three years in Canada. On the surface, this principle seems fair and logical, as it grants citizenship to those with genuine ties to Canada.
The real issue: Discrimination against internationally adopted children. Senator David Arnott has identified a fundamental flaw in the bill:
discrimination against intercountry adoptees. These are children who were born abroad but were adopted by Canadian parents through a legal, rigorous, and multi-level process. Once they settle in Canada, they should be afforded the same rights as domestic adoptees in every respect. This is also clearly required by the Hague Convention.
But under the new law, if these internationally adopted children grow up abroad and have children there, they will have to meet the “substantial connection test” to transfer citizenship to their children—while this requirement is not required for domestically adopted children. This is clear and serious discrimination.
Preparing for a Charter Challenge: Traces of a Legal Battle
According to several immigration lawyers, this situation violates Canada’s **Charter of Rights and Freedoms**, specifically Section 15, which prohibits discrimination. Therefore, it is possible that a court challenge against this law will soon be filed. The question here arises: when the court had already declared the citizenship laws unconstitutional, why did Parliament leave loopholes in the new legislation that would give rise to further legal disputes in the future?
Political wrangling and legislative pressure
The fact that the government had a January 20 court deadline Various parties tried to bring amendments to the bill, but this was not possible due to political differences and lack of time. This legislative process tells us that the lack of consensus on sensitive issues like human rights often creates new problems. Is this solution lasting and comprehensive?
While this law is a major step forward for “Lost Canadians,” some of its provisions open the door to new discrimination and complications—notably unclear and unfair provisions for internationally adopted children. The
new law is certainly a positive step forward, but it is incomplete. Citizenship is a fundamental identity of a country, and any discrimination in its laws not only creates legal complications but also makes the future of thousands of families uncertain. The government should see this bill as a beginning rather than a final solution—and further improve it in line with constitutional, humanitarian, and ethical requirements.