Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Minister.
Just before I get in there, your proposal for anyone born to a Canadian citizen abroad, mother or father, in or out of wedlock, on or after January 1, 1947, excludes Mr. Joe Taylor, whose case you are appealing to the Supreme Court after the government was ordered to restore citizenship. We heard from witnesses this morning who were born before January 1, 1947, who are children of war brides, and one whose daughter is actually serving in the Canadian military and looking forward to going to Afghanistan. Here we have a child of a war bride; she is now a grandmother who is going to help to take care of her grandchildren while the mother is fighting for Canada in Afghanistan, and she would not qualify under this provision.
Minister, the previous government had $20 million allocated for changing the Citizenship Act and bringing it into compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The previous ministers under the previous government asked this committee on citizenship and immigration to produce reports to give guidance to the department as to how that could be done. These reports on updating Canada's citizenship laws were virtually unanimously passed through this committee. Updating Canada's Citizenship Laws: It's Time received unanimous support in this committee. The other one, Citizenship Revocation: A Question of Due Process and Respecting Charter Rights, not only got approved by this committee but went through the House of Commons to concurrence, and your party concurred.
I'm going to read this into the record, and it is important to get this into the record. This is by probably the most knowledgeable person on citizenship and immigration matters in the Conservative caucus, Diane Ablonczy. This is what she said:
—the Conservative Party of Canada will absolutely oppose the revocation of citizenship by politicians behind closed doors and will oppose citizenship being denied on any vague and unidentified grounds. We will uphold Canadian values of due process and certainty in the law.
Here is another thing she said:
—if we are going to strip someone of citizenship, it must be by the highest standards of due process and the highest burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here is another quote:
—it's very clear that there is something very wrong with an act that purports to strip citizens of their citizenship behind closed doors by a few people who also have political considerations guiding their decisions.
This goes back to a debate in 2000, when we had the then critic Mr. Leon Benoit, member for Lakeland and critic for the Canadian Alliance. What he said was this:
The power should be left to the courts. Any political connection should be taken out of revocation of citizenship. There are too many potential problems as a result of that remaining.
These are just some of the quotes put forward.
Last week, behind closed doors, you went against everything you said as the Canadian Alliance Party and as the Conservative Party, and you proceeded to strip citizenship on something that is totally archaic and judged by the courts to be anti-charter.
Since you are the minister responsible, when you did your actions on the revocation, first, did you read the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal, which unanimously restored the citizenship of a person from whom you took it away? That's number one.
Second, did you ask for a report, as you were supposed to by directive of that court, before you could do such a thing?
Please answer the questions.