I don't know if we have a disagreement here or not, but let me refer to the provisions. Firstly, Britain allows the country to strip citizenship if it's deemed to be “conducive to the public good”. In Switzerland, you can strip citizenship if the person has acted in a way that causes serious prejudice to the national interest of the country. In Australia, the government may strip citizenship if it would be contrary to the public interest if an individual remained a citizen; and in the United States, citizenship can be stripped or revocation can be imposed for high treason or for someone being a member of an armed forces at war with the United States.
I'm not sure whether I or the Minister of Justice would agree with the interpretation you're making of the consequence of that declaration.
Putting that aside for just a minute, do you think that these are the types of inspiration or precedents we should be examining as we look at the wisdom of enacting the bill proposed by Mr. Shory?