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)
The problem is that the Canadian, British, and English usages of the terminology became misleading at an early stage because of the unique way in which England and Blackstone’s Commentaries looked at the relationships and dropped the normal word modifiers thinking they would remain implied. Instead, the distinction was forgotten by all but some of the scholars of the subject in the later generations. To make sense of this requires some diligent reading of these key sources to see how the terminology came to be misused over time. The American colonies and the subsequent United States tended to retain some of the original usages of the terminology, due to their independent parallel development of American common law and the advent of the United States which deliberately distanced itself from British common law with respect to mattes of citizenship in particular. This resulted in the United States taking their experience with English, Dutch (New Amsterdam/new York), French, Natural Law, and Continental (Europe) common law into consideration as they retained certain aspects of citizenship and the related terminology from which England/Britain had departed into their own unique usages. The end result is that the same phrases in use today do not arise from and mean the same thing, but they do serve to confuse present day generations who on both sides of the border who erroneously assume they are essentially the same.
I forgot to mention, give yourself more than minutes or hours to study Blackstone’s Commentaries, and don’t fall into the trap of trying to take shortcuts by letting someone else tell you what Blackstone has to say. Most commentators get it wrong. You have to really work at tracing through the arguments Blackstone is making, and then you have to step back and look at the same topic from the point of view of non-English scholars on the subject to gain an understanding of how Blackstone diverges on some definitions and converges on other definitions.