By: Donovan Martin Sr, Editor in Chief
In the decades leading up to Confederation, people living in what would later become Canada did not understand belonging as something issued by the state. There was no Canadian citizenship certificate, no federal registry, and no statute defining who qualified as Canadian. Identity was not administered. It was lived.
That reality matters today because it explains how modern Canada produced a group now known as Lost Canadians. Lost Canadians are individuals who were born in Canada, raised here, or born abroad to Canadian parents, who lived their lives believing they were Canadian, only to later discover that technical provisions in citizenship law did not recognize them, or that their citizenship was treated as lost, incomplete, or never properly granted. They did not lose their identity through choice or misconduct. They were failed by law.
To understand how that became possible, it helps to look back to a time when such failures could not occur.
Before 1867, Canada did not exist as a legal country. The territory was made up of British North American colonies. Those born within them were recognized in law as British subjects, with Indigenous peoples largely excluded from that framework, but the designation itself did not negate Canadian identity. It reflected imperial structure, not lived reality. Communities were Canadian. Institutions were Canadian. Political life was Canadian. The absence of a citizenship statute did not mean the absence of Canadians.
Under common law, status was inherent. Birth within the territory carried allegiance automatically. No application was required. No certificate validated identity. There was no administrative mechanism capable of quietly withdrawing belonging. Identity was recognized as fact, not conferred as privilege. There were no technical cracks to fall through.
This distinction matters. Common law status was durable. It could not be redefined by regulation or lost through oversight. Statutory status works differently. It exists only because legislation creates it. Once identity is written into law, it becomes conditional. It can be narrowed, interpreted, or denied. Lost Canadians are the human consequence of that shift, when belonging became rule-bound and some people later learned the rules were written in a manner that affected their status of citizenship.
Between the mid-1840s and Confederation, British North America underwent major political change, but personal legal identity remained stable. Power shifted from appointed authorities to elected assemblies. People governed themselves, debated taxation, built infrastructure, and shaped institutions. A Canadian political culture existed well before Canada existed as a legal entity.
Government administration during this period was limited. There was no centralized system tracking identity because no federal authority yet existed to do so. Records of movement and settlement were inconsistent, not because people were undocumented, but because identity did not require documentation to be valid. In that context, the state could not later claim someone lacked a legal status they had never been required to prove.
Confederation did not change this. The British North America Act, 1867 created the Dominion of Canada and established a federal government. It defined Parliament, provinces, and jurisdiction. It did not define citizenship. This was explicitly acknowledged by Viscount Monck, Canada’s first Governor General, who understood that Confederation created a new nationality. After July 1, 1867, most inhabitants remained British subjects in law while continuing to live as Canadians in practice.
Efforts to formalize nationality came later. The Immigration Act of 1910 defined what a Canadian citizen is and who is not an immigrant. Officials began speaking of a distinct Canadian nationality, but this remained administrative language. In law, most people were still British subjects.
The ambiguity of this period can be illustrated, though not defined, by the experience of the Red River Settlement and the creation of Manitoba in 1870. The Métis population was treated as British subjects under imperial law, as participants in a new province, and later recognized by courts as Indigenous peoples with constitutional standing. Their experience shows that identity and belonging were layered long before citizenship was reduced to a single legal category.
In 1946, Parliament enacted new legislation which codified citizenship, called An Act respecting Citizenship, Nationality, Naturalization, and Status of Aliens (which has come to be known as the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act, becoming effective on January 1, 1947). The Act did not create Canadians. People born in Canada were now legally described as Canadian citizens, having been British subjects before and after, with the exception of Indigenous peoples. The shift was legal, not existential.
Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King registered himself as the first Canadian citizen under the Act. This was not a neutral gesture. King had long supported exclusionary policies tied to race, culture, and social hierarchy. The citizenship laws enacted under his government embedded those assumptions directly into statute.
Once citizenship became statutory, it became selective by design. Women lost citizenship through marriage prior to 1947. Children lost status through technicalities of descent. Indigenous peoples were excluded unless they renounced their identity. Japanese and Chinese Canadians faced explicit legal barriers. These outcomes were not accidental. They were intentional filters.
The system operated less like a clear legal pathway and more like a game of Plinko. Individuals entered believing their identity was secure, only to bounce unpredictably through rules on legitimacy, parentage, residence, and retention. Outcomes depended on timing, paperwork, and shifting interpretations. Two people with nearly identical lives could land in entirely different legal positions.
Later reforms, including Bill C-3, restored citizenship to some who had been excluded or stripped of status. These changes mattered, but they did not alter the foundation. Citizenship in Canada remains statutory. Parliament retains the power to define who qualifies, how citizenship is acquired, and under what conditions it can be lost. What law grants, law can narrow.
Confederation created Canada’s political framework. Citizenship law later filled that framework with definitions and exclusions that were deliberate, not incidental. Lost Canadians are proof of what happens when identity is treated as a legal instrument rather than a lived reality.
After Confederation, the structure for a statutory system existed. What followed determined how belonging would be defined in law, and how easily it could be redefined, sometimes at the expense of people who had every reason to believe they already belonged.
About The Author
