Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Matas, it's great to see you here this afternoon.
When Mr. Shory introduced the bill—and we were there for second reading. I had always thought that the big push during second reading was to try to recognize the importance of landed immigrants who come to Canada, and that if they joined the forces, their citizenship requirement would be reduced from three years to two years.
Shortly thereafter, the members started to get a bit of attention or play on it. We had a Minister of Immigration who thought he would possibly exploit this particular bill's position on the order paper and bring in a totally different agenda. Now the focus seems to be more on terrorists and taking away citizenship, as opposed to bringing in his own bill. I suspect we will have a great problem with it because it denies us the opportunity to have a good, thorough discussion about what the government, as opposed to this particular private member, might be trying to do.
The charter does give rights to Canadian citizens, and they do have a right to be able to remain in Canada. With some of the suggestions that are being made in terms of potential government amendments, we could see that issue, in particular where there is dual citizenship. As you pointed out, someone could be born, raised, and spend their entire life here in Canada, and then maybe marry someone from another country, and as a result, that individual, because he or she has dual citizenship, could have their citizenship taken away.
Given your background, do you see any potential charter issue here? I would think I would have a right to my citizenship if I were born and raised here and had never experienced any other country. The only reason I might have access to another citizenship is through marriage or something of that nature. Do you see the establishment of two-tier citizenship here?