I was just going to begin by noting that this would basically be the same idea as the substantive connection test. We've already imposed a requirement by which you could regain your citizenship.
There's a burden of proof that you have to give. I think this is very reasonable. It's that burden of proof, such that the person, even if they meet the over 1,000 days that would be required, would have to then disclose to the department that they have not been “charged with, on trial for, convicted, subject to or party to an appeal”, and then it lays out the offences that would be excluded.
I'm trying to bring them up very quickly here, just so I can refer to some of them.
It's just two years or over. I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to add in. It's part of our due diligence. I think there would be a huge problem if there were former Canadians who are overseas, who maybe have.... There are a lot of honourable people who move on and go on to do other things overseas. They join different international organizations. They move for family. They move for love or what have you, or they're pursuing their careers or a better quality of life somewhere else. I think that's reasonable, but in certain cases, some of those people do get involved in criminal organizations and criminal acts, and we just want to make sure that they don't have a method of regaining their citizenship. I imagine there will be, again, a very small group of people who will be excluded by this extra provision.
It says, “or an indictable offence under subsection 29(2) or (3)”. It really refers to people who have already done something wrong or could have done something wrong, because if you're charged with an act you'll have to wait until basically the end of your trial and you'll need to have exhausted appeals. We will know, based on the judicial system in other countries, if you've been found to be innocent or not, and we take that at face value for what it's worth.
I think it's very reasonable. I think it's a method of protecting the Canadian population and Canadian citizenship from having, potentially, people who may.... The one I'm thinking of most of all, because we had the Federal Court of Appeal rule on this case today, is that Canada actually doesn't have a requirement to repatriate those four ISIS fighters, the suspected ISIS fighters, including one of the Canadians, Jack Letts. He is among those four. They went to fight for the Islamic State.
I have a lot of Kurdish friends who are from Rojava. Many of their families were affected by what ISIS did, and they don't want to see these people forcing the government to return them. I'm glad this court found in favour of the government. I'll say a nice thing: I'm glad they found in favour of the government. The government is right.
I've always been told that the Federal Court of Appeal is where the best judicial opinions are laid down because many of these people have extensive opinions. They're actually asked to interpret Supreme Court rulings at the Federal Court of Appeal because that's where the final decisions are made.
I think this is reasonable. It's basically my understanding that it would be two years plus in terms of those who would be excluded by this provision. I imagine that it's a very small group of people, but again, it's just for the safety of Canadians that we want to increase it. Because it's a small group of people and because it's very limited, and again, completely germane to the issue, it just adds something else to the substantive connection test.
I'm going to support it. I'd ask members to support it too. It's something that we have talked about with other members of other parties and that we thought would be a reasonable thing to do, so we're introducing it here.
I'm glad that my colleague, Mr. Redekopp, pushed for it.