Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am very pleased to be before the committee. I remember when the 1977 act was passed and that was almost 40 years ago, so I think it is time for some changes in the legislation.
I'm also pleased to see that we've extended the wait time by at least one year. I argued in 1977 that we shouldn't have abandoned the five-year wait. I think three years has been too short a period for people to know enough about Canada and our cultural systems to apply for citizenship. I approve of that change, even though it doesn't go quite as far as I might have wanted. It does bring us pretty well in line with most of the other countries of western Europe, although I think all those countries require longer periods than simply four years. Norway I think is eight, England is five, the United States is five, Australia...but we're getting closer to that.
I also support the measures that would enable us to remove the citizenship of someone who is a dual national, but who has committed treason or other treasonable or terrorist acts. I think that's a sensible position and I can't see anyone opposing that. Any Canadian citizen who is prepared to commit acts of terror against his fellow citizens I don't think deserves to continue to be a Canadian.
We have to make it dual citizen because Canada was a signatory to the convention on statelessness in 1954 and when it was amended in 1961. I think many people would think we should take it away from anyone, whether they're a dual citizen or not. It also brings us into line with all the countries of western Europe, with the exception of Portugal. All the other countries of the European Community now have provisions in their legislation to remove the citizenship of anyone who commits treason or acts of terror.
In England that power is given to the Home Secretary alone, and there is no hearing. He can remove the citizenship of a dual citizen for reasons conducive to the public good, whatever that means. The Home Secretary has a lot of power, and I think they've removed the citizenship of well over 30 or 40 British citizens, some of whom were born in Canada, but who had also adopted the citizenship of another country.
There are those who criticize this provision in the law because they claim it creates second-class citizenship. I don't buy that at all. There is an inherent difference between a natural-born citizen and a naturalized citizen. It's inherent in the process itself, but there are also other differences. A natural-born citizen has no choice. He's born into the citizenship and he is stuck with that whether he likes it or not.
A naturalized citizen, of course, is someone who makes a conscious choice to adopt Canadian citizenship. He makes an application. If he complies with the requirements, he takes an oath of allegiance and becomes a new citizen. I think that difference is with us whether we like it or not. It isn't a question of being second class. It's a question of being in a different category. The provision of naturalization creates a difference between the two.