Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming this morning.
Mr. Chair, as everyone knows, this bill is based on my three beliefs: I believe in more pathways to integration; our troops deserve the highest respect; and in my view, Canadian citizenship is a privilege that deserves the highest esteem.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the committee members' taking this bill very seriously and putting in all their time. I also appreciate the witnesses for their input, and specifically those witnesses who lost their loved ones in this kind of activity. They had to listen to all the other witnesses, to an extent, with my colleagues from the opposition basically shrugging away the victims' concerns and trying to defend offenders, I would say.
In my view, Mr. Chair, the individuals who attack those who give their lives or put their lives on the line to defend Canadian values, to defend the rights we enjoy here, should not have any right to Canadian citizenship or the privileges that come with that citizenship.
Mr. Matas, as you know, eighty percent-plus Canadians from coast to coast to coast have supported this bill, and of course your organization has supported my bill—I thank you for that. On top of that, during break weeks, etc., I had an opportunity to meet numerous Canadians from numerous provinces, and I have not found one single Canadian who would not support the intention of my bill, which basically says that those who protect our privileges and the rights that come with citizenship should have the right to citizenship as well.
I have attended all the meetings during this bill's study in this committee, and it saddened me, to an extent, when I saw some witnesses—and, as a matter of fact, some of my colleagues—suggesting that there is no due process in my bill. For the benefit of those members and, if they are watching, those witnesses, assume that section 18 of the Citizenship Act simply puts up the process under which the minister is obligated to, first, notify the person or individual affected. Then there is a judge who will make a decision, and that decision is appealable in the Federal Court. On top of that, the minister will also have the right or authority to change that decision.
My question, Mr. Matas, is very simple today, because we are talking about the bill and the assumed amendments, which I have to go through minutely.
In your view, once someone is convicted of any of these offences—terrorism, act of war, or, as you call it, armed conflict, or whatever we eventually call it—what minimum sentence should be required to apply to that convicted individual?