So they have adjourned.
What they have been talking about all day is contraband cigarettes, illegal cigarettes. That's a pretty serious issue. At the end of the day, we look at this situation and say that we could do better, because that issue causes many more people to smoke. You will find that there are many different interest groups, stakeholders, out there saying that they want to decrease the amount of tobacco consumption in our country. You would be amazed by the number of volunteers the cancer foundations have, the amount of dedication, the thousands of volunteer hours that are put in. There are incredible hours.
If you work for a charitable organization—and that's a great way to network—it's a great way to assist someone who has just landed in Canada in settling, in many different ways. It would take me a great deal of time to explain those many ways. The bottom line is that there's great value to it.
So if making this “three years to two years” change is about value and about recognizing what is important to Canadian values—to use “values” in a different sense—there might be some argument to be made about those popular, well-respected and cared-for charitable organizations in which someone puts in a thousand hours of volunteer work every year. There could be some merit in including them.
Why, then, don't we decrease it from three to two years? Madam Chairperson, this is where you can start to appreciate and understand why it's really important that we stay within the scope of the legislation. Each one of those points, I believe, should have been well talked about and questioned, because I can tell you that there are differing opinions. After all, I said that this is a private member's bill. There are differing opinions within my own caucus about the direction we should go. Many positions have great value. Some would argue that all positions have great value. Are you really wanting to move in that direction?
I think it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who reduced the citizenship requirement to three years. It used to be five years. But what was the difference? Unlike the case in this bill, it was universal. It applied to everyone, Madam Chair.
One of the things I respected immensely about Pierre Elliott Trudeau was that he had a sense of fairness. He recognized the value and the importance of citizenship. He saw the value of reducing from five years to three years. By doing that, Madam Chair, I believe he added to the ultimate socio-economic fabric of our community and allowed many people the opportunity to acquire their citizenship a whole lot earlier. That's what we want to emulate. We should be looking at Mr. Trudeau's approach in dealing with the issue of citizenship and at the very least be open to it.
I would like to have had Mr. Shory respond to some of the comments I have just enunciated. At the end of the day, this is an idea that Mr. Shory had in regard to the Canadian Forces. I would have been interested in knowing his opinion on the RCMP. What is—?