Mr. Chairperson, when I think in terms of the Boston tragedy, there are a number of thoughts that run across my mind. Right at the get-go, I want to acknowledge that no matter where you live in North America, what took place in Boston was horrific and at the end of the day we want to be able to see that there is justice done. We've heard from everyone from the President of the United States to the average Canadian in terms of how they feel about what has taken place. We give our best wishes and condolences to family members of victims and those who have been directly touched by this particular terrorist act. We can't say enough in terms of just how horrific this was.
Having said that, yesterday members of our law enforcement agencies, in cooperation with others, were able to discover a plot that would have led to Canadian lives possibly being lost and in many ways destroyed. Again, we congratulate all those involved in it and thank them, ever so grateful that we were able to prevent it from happening.
Yesterday I spoke at length on Bill S-7, combatting terrorism. It's now in third reading inside the House. Individuals are being afforded the opportunity to get on the record. We're doing what we can. In fact, the Liberal Party of Canada has indicated its support of Bill S-7, wanting to see the bill passed for all the right reasons. Yesterday I questioned why it is that the government was bringing forward Bill S-7 at that time, believing that maybe there was some political manipulation that was being conducted here, maybe even taking advantage of that tragedy that took place in Boston. I think there is a great deal of merit in terms of many of the things we're saying in terms of motives that were being used yesterday surrounding Bill S-7.
Now we're in committee, and there are two things that I get out of what Mr. Dykstra has said. Number one is the fact that in the motion it's very clear, Mr. Chairman, that the government does want to make significant amendments to Mr. Shory's bill, and he realizes, as the government has realized, that it is really out of scope, if we take a look specifically in terms of what it is that Bill C-425 was attempting to do. It's very precise. All you have to do is take a look at the summary. There are two things:
This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to require the Minister, on application, to reduce by one year the required years of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has signed a minimum three-year contract and who has completed basic training.
That's the number one objective. If we look at what happened in second reading, most of the discussion was on that issue. If we take a look at the reports that were coming out and being commented on, even by Mr. Shory himself, that seemed to be the primary reason for the bill itself.
The second part of the bill, Mr. Chairperson, is in regard to this:
It also amends section 9 of the Act to provide that an individual is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship
What's important here is that it's very specific. It's saying “if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces”. That's all that was meant with this particular private member's bill.
Why it's important for us to make note of this, Mr. Chairperson, is that the government has acknowledged that it is outside of the scope. But now the government wants to allow us to be able to make any sort of change we see fit, even though they would be out of scope. The biggest problem I have personally with that is that the rules that apply to a private member's bill are significantly different from the rules that apply to a government-sponsored bill.
I would be a whole lot more sympathetic to what Mr. Dykstra was talking about if we were suggesting that, given the situation that has been taking place over the last number of days, we should bring this bill back into second reading and allow for a more wholesome debate. We only allowed for one or two hours of debate, because it was a private member's bill. I can assure you that we would have critics—whether it's the member from Mount Royal, or our public safety critic, not to mention the leader of our party—who would love to contribute to the debate. Given the manner in which we're proposing legislation, this is really way outside the scope.
We talk about the manner in which citizenship is going to be changing, the establishment of a two-tier type of citizenship. We were provided a series of amendments that the government was possibly considering to bring forward to the committee. Late last night, I was told that what I was provided has now been changed. So I don't really know what to expect from all these amendments. I don't believe we're doing a service to private members bills when we break the rule and go beyond the scope.
I would recommend that we continue to move forward with Mr. Shory's bill at this time, clause by clause, as you suggested at the opening, Mr. Chairperson. If the government wants to bring in amendments, we can listen to them, and you'll rule whether or not they're within the scope of the bill. Even by his own admission, Mr. Dykstra has said he wants us to go back to the House because the amendments they want to move are beyond the scope of the private member's bill. I think that gives us some direction.
We might want to consider having a recess. This would allow our respective House leaders to see if they can work out a compromise that would achieve something that would protect the integrity of private members bills and at the same time respond to the government's need to bring in something more all-encompassing regarding terrorism/citizenship and so forth.
Mr. Chair, my recommendation would be that, if anything, we leave it to our House leaders and see what they come up with. If we want to continue on clause by clause today, I'm okay with that. But I would be very reluctant to suggest that we recommend to the House that we allow this committee to change the scope of the legislation.
