Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

A point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

What is your point of order, Mr. Dykstra?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Toone has gone down this road once already. He's repeating himself somewhat—

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

It's for the benefit of the minister.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Let me tell you something: this minister reads all of Hansard when it comes to this committee, so he's probably already read what you said, Mr. Toone.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I understand the point you're making. I do want to make one point of clarification on my point of order. I am the one who actually introduced the amendments here at committee; it was not the minister.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

Once again I will remind speakers to be careful.

I absolutely can say that we do have a minister who reads a lot and reads everything. He's just working away, even in here.

Thank you.

We'll go back to you, Mr. Toone.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Some members might be accused of not even sleeping sometimes, but....

I appreciate the comment by the parliamentary secretary. I would also point out that the parliamentary secretary also cannot present private members' bills. The point is similar, but I appreciate the point.

I wasn't here for all of the sittings in this committee, just for some, so I didn't get the benefit of all the proceedings, but the gist remains the same. The sanctity of the private members' bills needs to be protected. It bears mentioning that throughout history, private members' bills in this House of Commons and this Parliament have not always been as sacrosanct as they are now. It's only fairly recently that we determined for this particular process that we would ensure that all members could bring forward issues that are of some importance to them and to their constituents. Prior to the sixties, there essentially wasn't really much of a process at all for bringing forward private members' bills, and it's only through a lot of pressure from private members that a new process was developed and is reflected in what we have here today.

It's terribly important that the government not have full control of the agenda of the House of Commons, because the government sees things on a more global level, as a general rule, whereas individual members will have a much better appreciation of the needs of their constituents. Government ministers and parliamentary secretaries, I think, have an important role to play in this country, managing the affairs of this country. It's very important work indeed. But individual members also need to reflect the needs of their constituents, and that is the point of a private member's bill, to bring motions forward that otherwise would not have the opportunity to be debated. In the past we simply did not have a similar process in place. We had a process whereby members needed to convince the government itself to bring motions forward, or private members' bills forward, which would be fulsomely debated in the House of Commons. It was clearly a very difficult process and one that was very subjective.

We now have a very objective process whereby members have the opportunity to bring forward their individual motions. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, they can bring an unlimited number of motions or bills to the House of Commons, but they are limited to debating only one in a single cycle of precedence, which, largely speaking, reflects a four-year Parliament, if you will. Generally speaking, as we have just over 300 members of Parliament, it takes roughly a full four years for that full cycle of 300 members, less the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries, to have an opportunity to bring at least one motion forward, if ever we made it through all of the members bringing motions forward. So if we went through the entire order of precedence, then we would create a new lottery whereby there'd be a new order and all members of Parliament would again have an opportunity to bring forward motions on a new cycle. But that's fairly rare. In fact, I'm not sure if it's ever happened, but it certainly can happen if a Parliament is in any way longer than usual. If I'm not mistaken, a Parliament can last only five years, unless it's extended through perhaps an act of war, which might bring us back to the bill here, under certain circumstances.

Having an opportunity for members to bring forward their private members' bills is very important. They can bring bills or motions. The distinction isn't a very important one for most individuals, but it might be important to say here that a motion speaks to the will of the House of Commons, whereas a bill would actually amend law or create law as the case may be.

In this particular case, we are looking at a bill, and we are looking at amendments to the Citizenship Act.

We've seen a lot of bills change the Criminal Code in this Parliament, something that is fraught with danger, because the Criminal Code tends to be in the purview of government. It should often be the case—not necessarily exclusively, but predominantly, at the very least—that members of Parliament should ask the government to be amending the Criminal Code and not individual members through their private members' bills. But it is their right, and we respect that right. Again, all motions are deemed votable right from the get-go.

We need to be looking at a bill here that has been criticized significantly in this committee, through a number of interventions, through a number of witnesses who have a lot of experience in the field. Refugee lawyers especially, I think, had a number of interesting things to say.

I think one of the more interesting aspects was this. One of the witnesses brought up the point that if we create a stateless person, we no longer really have any control over their ability to be prosecuted for the very reason that we've determined them to be stateless.

If somebody has committed an act so grievous that we believe it's necessary to remove their citizenship, surely it would be better for us as a state to take on the responsibility of judging that person through due process than to remove their citizenship, which this bill seems to remove without the benefit of due process.

Again, I think it is very important that this bill has the opportunity to be fulsomely debated, not just at this committee but in the House itself. The amendment brings forward the opportunity for debate on this on a larger scale. I think Canadians as a whole would probably benefit from hearing this bill spoken of in the House of Commons itself, with a fulsome debate there as well. It's not enough to simply have it at committee level.

We're talking here about a fundamental element of Canadian society, our very citizenship within that society. That bears a very fulsome debate in the House of Commons. Again, when it comes to a private member's bill, that debate is simply not as fulsome as if it were a government bill.

In the past when we were creating bills that created or denied citizenship, I would be very hard pressed to be able to point out any significant precedent that said a couple of hours of debate would be enough in the House of Commons in order to determine whether we can actually remove somebody's citizenship, again, without a fulsome due process. It's very disturbing and very difficult for me to accept that it's through an almost automatic process.

Again, the bill does not speak to any other process. It simply says that if the person has been engaged in an act of war, we will remove their citizenship. It's very, very difficult wording. It's very, very difficult to understand the full impact and to detect any particular due process that would be afforded the individual.

We live in a society of laws. We don't live in a society where individuals, through possible evidence, possibly lack of evidence, through a process that is not transparent...that we would be removing one of their fundamental rights in Canada, which is to be a citizen of this country.

We applaud the initiative to be able to fast-track somebody's ability to become a Canadian citizen. The idea that somebody can work in this country and not be afforded the opportunity to become a citizen, we see a little bit too often. We saw that recently with the scandal with the Royal Bank bringing in temporary foreign workers. Those people would be working in this country, contributing to its wealth, contributing to its development, and we would be denying them the opportunity to be able to enjoy the rights and privileges that so many others who have made it to this country have been afforded.

Others were given that opportunity—namely, you come to Canada, you contribute to Canada, you want to lay roots in Canada, and we will afford you the opportunity to become a citizen.

It's laudable in this bill that we want to give 14 people that opportunity. I'm very happy that a number of individuals might be afforded that opportunity.

But what about the tens of thousands who would also like to be afforded that opportunity and who are simply waiting in line? They too are trying to contribute fulsomely to our country. I find it difficult to simply draw the line at people who join the Canadian Forces. Why not go further? Why not give the opportunity to so many others who are working here? Why not speak to those individuals who work for the Royal Bank of Canada, who are offering surely sound financial advice to Canadians? Why are they not being considered for fast-track Canadian citizenship?

Again, this probably would have been discussed had this been a government bill right from the get-go. But it's not; it's a private member's bill on a very finite and very restricted interpretation of who needs to be fast-tracked and who is going to be left to the side.

The bill simply lacks breadth. It lacks scope. It needs to look at where the rest of the backlog is in order for people who equally are contributing to society in so many different ways can benefit from being full citizens of this country.

It's not enough to be a resident of this country. I think the Americans put it very, very well when they said no taxation without representation. The idea that you're going to be taxed, you're going to pay into EI, and you're going to pay into various funds in this country without having the right to be able to draw from so many of them is difficult to accept.

For our neighbours to the south, their very statehood was based on that very notion, that they did not believe in creating tiers of citizenship. They wanted to be full citizens, with full rights over their lives, and full participants in their democracy.

Canada is a proud country with proud traditions of democracy, drawing from two systems in the history of democracy, the British Commonwealth system and the French civil law system. We're truly a unique country in so many ways, with a proud history of contributing to the growth of democracy across the world. And yet here we are, saying that there are going to be classes of opportunity of citizenship. That is troubling. That is very troubling indeed.

In the House of Commons, this bill will I hope benefit from significant improvement. At the very least, it will give Canadians the opportunity to hear more about what needs to be discussed in this bill, what needs to be perhaps improved in this bill.

The improvements that we have made to the bill at this point, or at least we are debating, in many ways are simply not enough. That the government would bring forward through its parliamentary secretary a series of amendments is troubling. It speaks to a government that simply doesn't want to benefit from the debates that are afforded it, the opportunities of debate that are afforded it.

I'm troubled not just by this bill, but just by the frequent and incessant—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

[Inaudible--Editor].... Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

I'm listening. I'm a woman; I can multi-task.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

—opportunities this government takes to seemingly curtail debate.

This bill seems to have suffered that same fate. We are not bringing these ideas forward to Canadians. The very reason we have a Parliament is for all of us to come together and debate these bills in an open and transparent fashion, and to not suffer from the government unduly taking over the process, which seems to have been what was attempted here. It's an unusual step, indeed, a rare step, a questionable step, and a step that simply betrays that a government doesn't want to benefit from a fulsome debate.

We need to have more opportunities to bring forward amendments as members of the committee, as members of the House of Commons. It is a private member's bill, after all. It is a member's bill that's to be debated amongst colleagues, members from all of the parties.

In Parliament when it comes to private members' bills, as much as possible, these bills are essentially treated as non-partisan bills. We saw it just yesterday with the private member's bill on having a certain date to celebrate Pope John Paul II. It had significant support from all the parties in the House of Commons. I thing it was clear that was, in fact, the nature of private members' bills: to indeed bring forward that level of support and that level of debate amongst all of the members of the House of Commons.

In this case we're seeing a private member's bill that's been almost completely turned on its head by the government members of the House of Commons. That, again, betrays the very nature of the private member's bill.

We have this process in place specifically to allow members who are not government officers to bring issues forward to this House of Commons. In this particular case, that process was betrayed, and it's of great concern.

I question whether this might be a precedent. If it is, all of the private members of the House of Commons have reason to be very concerned. Their bills could be adopted and modified by the very officers of the government the private members process was meant to protect them from.

It betrays a lack of understanding, perhaps, of the history of the private member's bill process in this House of Commons. It betrays a certain expediency by government officers, that they would take that opportunity, when so many other opportunities are afforded them, to bring forward their bills.

Private members' bills need to be treated as sacrosanct. The right of private members to bring forward their proposals from their constituents needs to be considered an inalienable right, if you will, of members of this House of Commons. The very fact that we had a controversy in the House of Commons recently on Motion M-408 betrays to what extent private members want to defend their rights to bring forward their bills and their motions without interference from government officers. And that debate is ongoing.

We are one of the few countries that allow private members to bring forward their bills. We've had delegations from countries, from overseas, that have come to ask us how that process works. They're interested, because they don't have that same process. They want to see whether they can integrate our process over there.

I would find it very unfortunate if I had to explain to them that our process works as long as government officers don't turn that process on its head and turn a private member's bill into an apparent government bill. I don't think that's what they come to Canada to hear. I suspect they come to Canada to hear how we work collegially to bring forward private members' bills to support members in their endeavours to bring issues forward from their constituents.

I suspect that when other countries look at us through this process, they're probably very discouraged. Certainly I don't think the ones I've met would have been very pleased to hear the way this bill has been treated by members of this House of Commons.

We need to respect that process. It has history, it has meaning, and it's a process for which our predecessors fought hard in order to have the opportunity to bring these bills forward and to have a debate.

Now, there are limits to this process. We have only a few hours of debate, unlike government bills that have essentially an almost unlimited period of time, or at least—the current time allocation motions notwithstanding—the time that's available for government bills to be debated is very lengthy indeed, as it should be. Government bills have consequences, or on the face of it they should have consequences, for all individuals in Canada. Private members' bills sometimes deal with specific constituents, and perhaps that's why we have less time to debate them.

Be that as it may, it was a compromise, because in the past we simply didn't have any time at all to debate them. So having any time at all, we need to be respectful of that. We need to be cognizant of the fact that there was a fight in the House of Commons to be able to get that right, and that right should be respected.

I have difficulty seeing how that right is being respected here. It's a dangerous precedent. It's a precedent that could lead private members, commonly called backbenchers, to revolt. If you squeeze too hard, people fight back. We've seen that in the House of Commons recently and we're going to see it again, I'm sure.

There have to be limits to the way the government can bring its bills forward, and this is one of them. Private members' bills are exactly that: they're private. They are not the public domain of government officers.

We need to be very cognizant of our history, and we need to understand why the history transpired as it did, in order to respect the institutions we have here today and in order to help them grow in the future. We're simply not measuring up to that high standard right now. That's unfortunate, because it might lead us down the wrong path.

The amendment here I think helps guide us back to a proper path. I think it will help bring back a little bit of balance to the debate, a debate that I think has been difficult. It's brought out a lot of emotion. It's a debate towards the end of the parliamentary session before the House rises for the summer, one that takes on a certain urgency, which to some extent explains why we're still sitting here at this late hour. This is not the only committee that has sat at such a late hour. In fact some have sat for hours and hours and hours, and days on end. But those debates are worth having. We're talking here about helping residents become citizens.

In the case of individuals who want to join the Canadian Armed Forces and become citizens, we're offering them a fast track to that citizenship—which is laudable, indeed laudable, but in so many ways insufficient.

To twin this with the idea of removing citizenship gives an odd carrot-and-stick element to this bill, which has been criticized by so many individuals. The permanent members of this committee will certainly be aware of it, and I'm sure the parliamentary secretary no doubt has a great recollection of it all.

We really need to be thinking about what the objective is here. What constituents are being aided here, and to what benefit?

I have no doubt that Mr. Shory has a number of constituents who would see this bill as being a step in the right direction. That he reflects the will of his constituents, I applaud him, but surely he has so many other constituents who would want another option as well to be able to get that citizenship that isn't just limited to those who are going to enter the Canadian Armed Forces.

We need to be looking at the big picture as well as the micro. In this case, the micro has been criticized by a number of individuals, and for good reason. The bill seems to ignore the fact that there are legislative obstacles for those very people that the member is trying to help. They will only be given the opportunity to benefit from the beneficial sides of this bill through exceptional circumstances, and subjective exceptional circumstances.

I don't think that individuals who enter the Canadian Armed Forces—certainly the ones I've spoken to—would be satisfied that there would be an exceptional subjective circumstance whereby they might gain Canadian citizenship even through the terms of this bill. It's insufficient. That is why these bills benefit from debate, in order to identify the insufficiencies, in order to benefit from the testimony of expert witnesses and also from the experience of colleagues.

I think the committee is especially well placed to hear from the expert witnesses, but the House of Commons is where you're going to hear from your colleagues as to where there are possible opportunities for amelioration of the bill.

The private members' bill process does not allow for significant debate in the House of Commons on that front. To bring this bill forward to the House of Commons is probably in certain ways a step in the right direction. But at the same time, we have to understand the limitation of this bill, that the debate in the House of Commons is terribly limited and encadré, boxed in, by certain rules that don't allow for fulsome debate.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary was right in some senses to bring forward certain amendments in the sense that this probably warrants a more fulsome debate in the way that a government bill would have opportunity to be debated. But we're not talking about a government bill here, we're talking about a private member's bill.

I would certainly invite the parliamentary secretary to speak to his minister to see if there are other ways the government could help in the situation of a backlog of individuals who are looking for Canadian citizenship. But when we're looking at this particular bill, I think we have reason to pause and reason to be concerned. We simply are talking about a bill that, while it might have started as a private member's own initiative, has taken on an air of government responsibility.

This part is the most worrisome of them all. We really need to be looking at the process that this bill has gone through and at the issues that were brought forward in this committee for where the ameliorations could be.

Unfortunately, the amendments that were brought forward by the parliamentary secretary I don't think fully addressed what was being brought forward by the witnesses. In fact, it turned the bill on its head. That's terribly unfortunate. We should not be doing that.

A private member should be defending his bill with all of his might. The private member brought it forward in the first place for good reason, I'm sure, and that private member should take the criticisms and the suggestions from government officers with a certain reservation, with a certain hesitation.

I don't want to tell the member how to deal with his private member's bill per se, but I do suggest that he would have benefited from discussing with the minister the point that government business belongs in government business and private members' business belongs where it belongs.

This bill will probably have a lot of difficulty getting all-party support. It continues to be hotly contested whether in this House, in this committee, or outside among refugee and new Canadian circles.

It's a disturbing bill. It's going to have to be improved.

With that, Madam Chair, I throw the ability to speak back to you.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you very much, Mr. Toone, for your words and for your participation in the debate.

The next speaker I have is Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am delighted, and I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to this amendment. I will try to be somewhat brief in my comments, if I may, although I do want to touch on some key points that I think are pertinent to the discussion we've been having in this committee over the last few days.

I do want to say that I have been quite attentive, as you and other members here know well. I have also been somewhat touched, and at times emotional, at some of the personal stories that some of the members have shared with us. I understand when we speak about Canadian citizenship that we are evoking emotions and passion in people because of the deep respect and value that we all put on our citizenship.

From its outset, when the sponsor the bill, Mr. Shory, the honourable member for Calgary Northeast, presented his private member's bill, Bill C-425, he was very clear as to the reasons why he did it. It was based on three fundamental beliefs, key beliefs that he had: his belief that our troops deserve the highest respect, his belief in creating more pathways to integration, and his belief that Canadian citizenship is a privilege and its value should be protected.

I know from personal experience what it means to a family. Mine is a family like so many other Canadian families, a family of immigrants. My parents came to this country in the mid-fifties. In fact, my dearly departed mom, in 1956, and my dad in 1957, boarded a ship from their native country and landed on the shores of Halifax, in Canada, with a dream for a better life. I know how valuable Canadian citizenship was to my parents when I was born and my brothers were born, and how important it was for them to obtain their Canadian citizenship.

Without making this a personal story about me, because that's not what we're here to do today, I will share with you how emotional and how proud I, along with my family, felt as the first born to my family in this country, when I was sworn in as a member of Parliament in this country, so far away from my parents' native country of Greece.

The day I was being sworn in as a member of Parliament, as it was for all of us, was a very special day. I invited 34 family members and friends to attend. Unfortunately, and quite tragically, I lost my mom six months to the day before I was elected. She could not be here to witness that very special moment for me, although I confess that I felt her presence abundantly. But in those 30 seconds when were being sworn in, when we put our hand on our book of worship, I looked in the crowd at the 34 people, Madam Chair. The cameras were going and people were smiling and they were happy with this, and right there sitting in the front row was my dad. He had a red and white tie on with a maple leaf and the word “Canada” across it, and while everybody else was smiling and taking pictures, he had tears streaming down his face, because the moment was not lost on him. Certainly when I saw his face, understanding the life of the immigrant and the hardships they had when they came to this country and the life I have had, having been born in this country and having had every opportunity available to me because of my hard-working parents, that moment was not lost on me either.

The value of Canadian citizenship is something we all feel and cherish. When I heard my honourable members opposite speak about their own personal experiences, I felt their emotion, as I have felt on numerous occasions, knowing how blessed I am to be a permanent member of this particular committee of this House of Commons.

When I heard Mr. Shory in that very first reading speak about his bill—and I've had many opportunities to speak with him about it since then—I was struck by how open and welcoming he was in soliciting input in the form of information and amendments from everyone in the House. He was really eager to make something that he felt so strongly about even better.

I have been very cognizant of this because of the personal attachment I feel to this particular piece of legislation. I've been very cognizant of how Mr. Shory has felt about some of the amendments and the changes to his bill since that very first reading. He has in every instance demonstrated his pride of the ownership of this bill and, equally, has accepted the recommendations and amendments that he felt made this piece of legislation even better.

I was also touched by the fact that Mr. Shory, not being a permanent member of the citizenship and immigration committee, attended every single meeting while this bill was being debated. He heard every single witness, he heard every single comment from every member of Parliament who had an opportunity to participate and speak, and in some instances was subbed in when someone could not come.

Further, the fact that he has been present in this marathon of hours in which we have been meeting and discussing this particular amendment testifies to his pride of ownership in this piece of legislation. At no time has he indicated or demonstrated that his member's privileges have been in any way impeded. Therefore, I feel wholeheartedly supportive of the fact that this private member's bill is indeed a private member's bill by a member of Parliament who welcomed any and all input as valuable input to him in moving forward.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

From all parties.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, from all parties.

I want to share a little bit of information I have in front of me about a survey that was done. I'll keep it as brief as I possibly can.

On a question about whether Canadians agree that Canadian citizens who are found guilty of committing acts of treason against Canada, such as an act of war against Canadian troops, should be stripped of their citizenship, if we take an overall average of all respondents to the survey, 83% agreed with that, Madam Chair, 14% disagreed, and 2% said they don't know.

Of particular interest to the multicultural community, this beautiful mosaic we have here in the most welcoming country in the world in which to live, is that on that very same question, while 83% of those born in Canada agree, perhaps even more striking is the fact that 83% of those not born in Canada also agree. I think that is a further testament to the importance and the significance that all Canadians, regardless of their country of origin, attach to Canadian citizenship and to how they feel about it.

That's my assessment, based on reading some of these results.

There was one other breakdown of that survey. It was done by political party. I should say that in all cases—Conservative, Liberal, NDP, and even the Green Party—the lowest number of people who agreed was 82%. These people were voters in the May 2011 election who said they voted for a particular party. The lowest number was 82% and the highest was 94% of those who agreed that people who perpetrate an act of war or an act of treason against our country or our troops should be stripped of their Canadian citizenship.

Here is what we heard from some of the witnesses who came to our committee—and I listened to them quite attentively, because there was a broad group of people who presented to us from different organizations and different associations representing the largest or most significant numbers of people in our Canadian population.

Frank Dimant, for example, is the chief executive officer of B'nai Brith Canada. This is what he had to say:

We welcome the signal in this bill of a commitment to move the recommendation for revocation of citizenship beyond fraud, something we have long argued for. We all value the cherished rights and freedoms that Canadian citizenship bestows but B'nai Brith Canada has a long history of also promoting the serious responsibilities that citizenship entails.

This is from his letter dated January 28, 2013.

Bashir Ahmed is the executive director of the Somali-Canadian Education and Rural Development Organization. This is what he had to say, Madam Chair:

This bill will go a long way toward strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. It makes good sense to expedite citizenship for those who are willing to defend it, while stripping it from those who fight against Canada and Canadian values such as freedom. This bill will prevent terrorist groups [from entering] Canada and [engaging in] further terrorist activities.

There are many groups, Madam Speaker.

Salma Siddiqui, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:

Canadians who are opposed to the values of our society should not be allowed to abuse the privileges that come with holding Canadian citizenship. We must act to strip Canadian citizenship from those who seek to exploit it for violent and illegal activities.... I have heard concerns that Bill C-425 represents a major reaction or that it serves a “political process”. I disagree. Bill C-425 represents an assertion of the pride we hold in our values of an open, liberal democracy where our freedoms are applied to all.

It goes on and on and on, Madam Chair. I'm not going to go into everybody's testimony, but I will finish with the testimony we heard from Asif Khan, the national secretary for public relations of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at. This is what Asif had to say:

Canadian citizenship is a great blessing and a gift whose importance and purity must be protected and preserved. That is why it is crucial that the Canadian government possess the power to strip Canadian citizenship from all such dual citizens who are convicted and confirmed in committing acts of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

Madam Chair, this is the point I want to highlight for you and all my colleagues here today. This is a bill that addresses terrorists, people who commit crimes, crimes against Canada, crimes against our brave men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is a bill that protects and further gives an indication of strong protection for our victims. That's what this is.

This is not going to strip a poor family that had dual citizenship and now somebody is going to be kicked out. Here's a simple solution. If you don't commit a crime against Canada, if you don't commit an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces, there is no opportunity for you to lose your Canadian citizenship. There's no possibility of that happening. This only addresses criminals, terrorists, people who would perpetuate a crime against our country. That's what this legislation does. It also rewards those who put their name forth and serve on the front lines both within our country and beyond our borders whenever they are called to do so by serving in our armed forces. That's what it does.

Madam Chair, I can go on and speak about debate in the House—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

And you have every right to do that.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

—and I appreciate—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

You could speak for 12 hours and this chair would not object.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

—your latitude on that. I appreciate your indulgence.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

It's the same treatment for everyone on the committee.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I know that a lot has been said tonight about process and about debate in the House. I think we all understand that a government's objective is to pass legislation and govern. I think we all understand the important role that the opposition has—I don't want to harp on the word “oppose”—to question and to try to make—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Hopefully to make it better.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

—an important contribution to the legislative process by making it better. I think it would be wrong of me or any member of Parliament to point to someone on the other side and say, “You don't have a right to do what you were elected to do by your constituents.”

We are all here representing our constituents. I am extremely proud of the fact that I have the privilege of representing Richmond Hill, one of the most diverse communities in the country, and I am sure that a lot of us around the table can say that. We all understand—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I was having a little smile, so please excuse me. That's the reason I smiled: because I think there are many of us who love to say that, right? You're absolutely right. We live in a beautiful country, with a huge diversity.