Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome to all the witnesses. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I agreed with a good chunk of what Mr. Attia said, and 100% of what the others said. I would say Ms. Go provided a very good summary of why the Liberals are voting no, even in second reading, meaning we don't even agree in principle. In our view, Canada should welcome more citizens. We should have fewer barriers. We should welcome new citizens with a smile. This system does precisely the opposite, erecting more and more barriers and applying scowls rather than smiles to the newcomers. In a nutshell, that's our view.
Having listened to the minister, of all the things we don't like about it, I think the one on which he is most likely to back down, if on anything, is this business of partial credit for students and family, caregivers, etc. I do commend the NDP for taking a poll of our previous panel, which was very diverse, and of this one, which is reasonably diverse, and getting, I believe, unanimity in both cases. I did a similar poll on the issue of language tests applied to spouses coming in, which I thought was Orwellian, and he backed down on that, so maybe there's hope.
If it's okay, I would like to focus my question on Mr. Attia, because the other three of you will just be saying the same thing.
Mr. Attia, the government says that the onus of proof is on the person who has to prove that he or she is a dual national or else will have citizenship revoked. It seems to me that is wrong. The onus of proof should be on the government, which has the resources. The individual may have a very difficult time proving that, if he or she has to deal with some huge bureaucracy overseas.
Let's be silent on whether revocation is right or wrong. We may disagree on that. But forgetting that, in terms of process, would it not be better if the onus of proof were on the government and not on the other person?