First of all, the assertion that citizenship is inalienable is factually inaccurate. Citizenship is alienable under our current law; it always has been. If a naturalized citizen is found to have obtained citizenship through fraudulent means, we have the power and the obligation, I would argue, under the Citizenship Act to commence revocation proceedings, as we have done in many cases against such individuals.
Furthermore, individuals can alienate their citizenship of their own volition by making an application for renunciation. What Mr. Shory's bill proposes to do is to essentially expand the grounds for renunciation to a deemed renunciation based on people's actions. Here's the idea. We ought not to be narrow and legalistic about the process of renunciation of citizenship. If individuals go out and voluntarily take up citizenship in a country that is at war with Canada, for example, and they go and commit acts of war against Canada, we ought not to be so legalistic as to wait patiently for them to sign a form renouncing their citizenship. We ought to read in their actions the renunciation of their loyalty to Canada and indeed their citizenship. That's the premise here.
So, yes, citizenship is alienable, it always has been, it is in every other country, and those who suggest it's inalienable are creating a myth, frankly.