On Nov. 20, the House of Commons passed Bill C-3, drastically altering the Canadian citizenship process. The bill, also known as the “Lost Canadians Bill,” expands access to citizenship for over 115,000 people born abroad. Previously, second-generation Canadians born outside of Canada couldn’t inherit citizenship from a naturalized parent. Now, formerly excluded “second-gens” are guaranteed citizenship, contingent on their parent demonstrating a “substantial connection” to Canada—such as having lived in Canada for at least three years. Lawmakers have celebrated Bill C-3 as a crucial step towards citizenship equity. Yet, the bill has a critical flaw: It fails to grant automatic citizenship to international-born children adopted by birthright Canadian citizens. Bill C-3’s reluctance to guarantee international adoptees’ citizenship reflects underlying anti-adoption bias and an exclusive attitude towards Canadian national belonging. 

One point of contention in Bill C-3 is its substantial connection requirement, which intends to ensure that prospective citizens have genuine ties to Canada. While domestic adoptees are granted automatic Canadian citizenship, international adoptees to Canadian citizens must meet the same substantial connection criteria as second-generation abroad applicants. It is unsurprising that children adopted from abroad would be subjected to some form of government evaluation before obtaining citizenship. However, international adoptees are already subjected to a thorough and intensive government evaluation as part of the adoption process. In Quebec, for example, prospective adoptees must submit a comprehensive profile documenting their personal histories and special needs before being admitted to Canada. It is therefore redundant for Canada to require further vetting of adoptees as grounds for their citizenship. 

Implicit in Bill C-3’s substantial connection stipulation is the notion that the relationship between adopted children and their parents is of lesser validity than that between biological family members. Even before Bill C-3, citizenship typically passed directly from birthright citizens to their biological children. However, the bill does not afford adopted families this same privilege. 

Though proving substantial connection is a formality that does not pose a significant barrier to obtaining citizenship, the requirement draws a discriminatory legal distinction between biological and adopted families. This legislation forces adopted children to earn the right to their parents’ citizenship, a benefit that is freely granted to biological offspring. It is critical to consider how legislation like Bill C-3 reflects societal biases regarding the legitimacy of adopted families. 

Additionally, the bill’s double standards regarding who is granted automatic citizenship leave international adoptees in a vulnerable position. The vast majority of children born abroad are adopted in their early youth, thus leaving the matter of citizenship to their parents’ discretion. It is unfair that adopted children are not guaranteed the full rights and protections of the country to which they have been brought without a choice. 

Bill C-3’s unequal application of citizenship rights raises a larger question: What does it mean to be a Canadian? If ‘Canadian-ness’ is defined by the amount of time lived in Canada (the government metric used to establish substantial connection), then most immigrants are more Canadian than nationals who moved abroad as children. Yet, if ‘Canadian-ness’ is defined by country of origin, then millions of immigrants are excluded from claim to national identity. 

In Quebec province, similar tensions are emerging regarding regional identity at the nexus of increased immigration and nativist sentiment. The Quebecois government is pushing language preservation policies which, if actualized, would inhibit non-Francophones from fully integrating into society. Yet these policies overlook Quebec’s linguistic and cultural diversity, stubbornly pushing for a homogenized francophone identity. Both Bill C-3 and Quebec’s language policies reflect the same flawed logic: That belonging can be legislated through requirements and restrictions rather than cultivated through inclusion and shared investment in community. Senator Mary Coyle lauded Bill C-3 for expanding citizenship opportunities while still “protecting the value”—in other words, exclusivity—of national status. The idea that exclusivity makes citizenship valuable rests on a false belief that accessibility cheapens community. In reality, an individual’s willingness to invest in a Canadian national community—to support it, to respect it, and to protect it— is what makes Canada special. Thus, the House of Commons must amend the bill to rectify Bill C-3’s oversights, moving toward citizenship equity for international adoptees.