“I believe it states the obvious in paragraph 5-that anyone born in Canada or on a Canadian ship is a NBC of Canada. It does not create a law, it simply clarifies natural law. Part II of the act deals with citizens that are not natural born.”
You are mistaken, because the usage of the terminology is misleading you. Look up Calvin’s Case 1608 and read what Sir Edward Coke had to say about datus versus natus. Then take note of how the usage of the terminology got distorted due to the way Blackstone’s Commentaries adapting the terminology to the changing customs of England and unique to British subjects versus Continental citizens of Europe under the Law of Nations. Take special care to note what has to be done to reconcile the shifting usages of the terminology in England to the actual events taking place as defined by Sir Edward Coke, the Naturalization Act of 1541, and earlier English acts concerning English subjects.
You also need to note the British American Colonies developed an independent American common law in parallel to English common law. The rarity and cost of paper and books meant that the English common law was learned at meals in the Inn of London, because the cases were not published until the early 19th Century. Consequently, aside form the occasional papers and books obtained from Britain, France, and elsewhere, the Colonial Americans wee on their own to develop their own divergent forms of common law peculiar to the colonies. This means there was also a divergence in the usage of some legal terminologies. This has a direct effect upon the definitions of the terminologies being used here.
There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances; the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta pura, et indefinite, and this originally is due by nature and birth-right, and is called alta ligeantia, and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.
1. An alien is a subject that is born out of the ligeance of the King, and under the ligeance of another;
I believe you are suggesting that the Canadian legislature has no authority to confer Natural born citizenship status.
I agree with that and I found this previously with regard to that subject:
It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)