Sure. Let me add one thing to my previous answer. Colonel Russell Williams is a dual citizen of England and Canada, by the way.
To go back to Canadian prosecution for criminal offences, well, we have an anti-terrorism law. We have used it and we can use it. We have the ability to extradite both to and from Canada. We can use it. We have used it.
The idea that Canada is made safer or that the world is made safer by exporting people to other countries is both parochial and inconsistent with the claim that terrorism is a global problem. In addition to that, of course, there is the odd arbitrariness of the country of destination.
Let's say that I am a Canadian dual citizen of Britain and I commit a terrorist act in, I don't know, name your country, in Iran. I will be stripped of my Canadian citizenship because I have committed an act of terrorism and deported to Britain? In what sense is Britain more properly the home for somebody like me than is Canada? Are we looking, in a sense, at a race to the bottom because Britain is the other country that has this law?
If we imagine that if we think a law is good for us it must be good for others, what if all countries followed this practice? Then would it just be a race as to who could strip citizenship faster? If that's what the idea is, what is the principle of international cooperation and the global fight against terrorism that is being advanced here?
I suggest that there is no advantage to it.