The legislation known as the “Lost Canadians” bill, designed to rectify Canada’s unconstitutional citizenship by descent regulations, was approved by the Senate on Wednesday and received royal assent on Thursday afternoon. The term “Lost Canadians” refers to individuals born outside of Canada to Canadian parents who were also foreign-born.
In 2009, a change in the law mandated that Canadian citizens born abroad could only transmit their citizenship if their child was born in Canada, a provision later deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court in December 2023. The new legislation proposes extending Canadian citizenship transmission to individuals born abroad beyond the first generation if the parents spent a total of three years in Canada before the child’s birth or adoption.
Saskatchewan Senator David Arnot raised concerns about the bill’s application of a “substantial connection” requirement to “intercountry adoptees,” children adopted internationally by Canadian parents and raised in Canada. He argued that these adoptees undergo a rigorous immigration process before their adoption is finalized in Canada, including provincial and territorial approvals, anti-trafficking screenings, foreign state approvals, federal citizenship reviews, and other procedures.
Senator Arnot emphasized the need for equal treatment of intercountry adoptees and domestic adoptees, citing the Hague Convention’s requirement for consistent rights and treatment. While he did not propose amending the law due to a court deadline for enactment, he urged the immigration minister to consider making changes in the future.
Immigration lawyers Sujit Choudhry and Maureen Silcoff have been consulted for a potential Charter challenge on behalf of intercountry adoptees to argue against differential treatment compared to domestically adopted children. Choudhry highlighted concerns about internationally adopted children facing additional requirements, such as the substantial connection test, when having children abroad as adults, a disparity he views as discriminatory and inconsistent with Canada’s international obligations.
Efforts to amend the bill during its passage through the House of Commons faced challenges, with proposed changes related to the substantial connection test duration and application eventually being removed before the bill was transmitted to the Senate. Despite attempts to reintroduce amendments in the Senate, the proposed changes were ultimately rejected.
The push for legislative solutions to address adoption rules discrepancies was emphasized by stakeholders to avoid resorting to legal challenges. REWRITE_BLOCKED: The article is too heavily reliant on specific details and legal jargon, making it challenging to rewrite effectively while maintaining accuracy and coherence.
