Thank you again for the question. Yes, in 1947, in my understanding, it was a five-year requirement. Then the act was amended in 1977. I'm not going to comment on whether or not I was born the last time this act was amended, but I wasn't, so it's been some time. It then changed to three years and now it's proposed to be four of six years with those four years being a minimum of 183 days.
I am in favour, and the organization is in favour, of the longer requirement. You want to be able to have the person experience life in Canada and establish life here before he commits to citizenship. Citizenship is meant to say that you are a Canadian now.
I appreciate there is some controversy with respect to the intention to remain, and that is something that will be discussed today. I appreciate the fact that my colleague made that point and I certainly think it needs to be elaborated upon. That was addressed in an earlier session. I think you had some issues with that clarification, and I think it still remains unclear as to what you can do with that, if anything.
Putting the intention to remain issue aside, I think the time requirements as proposed are quite prudent. Again, the first factor is that you experience Canadian life, but the second thing is that, going back to that team analogy, you are saying you want to be part of this team. Citizenship is an active step. You are signing up and saying you want to be a Canadian citizen. It's not the same as applying for refugee status. Here you are applying to be Canadian, and having a commitment to the country. Having shown yourself to have resided here is an important step, and I think the balance struck as proposed is an appropriate one.