Discrimination in the sense.... You're imbuing a negative attitude toward that, but you're discriminating in the sense of making discriminations that put Canadians in two different kinds of categories: the set of Canadians who have a full set of rights to be protected by the Canadian state and those who don't. I myself take offence with that.
Second, if we're focusing only on naturalized citizens, it's useful to point to the United States in this case. The United States has a long history of Supreme Court jurisprudence that says that naturalized Americans and naturally born Americans must be treated 100% equally once they have citizenship. In that sense, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, or an American is an American is an American. That's one thing.
Also, I think it's worthwhile to consider the danger of the slippery-slope argumentation that is going on here, which is of course that there are some people who are comfortable with revocation for citizenship in cases of fraud. I think even in those kinds of cases, it needs to be very carefully circumscribed, but I wasn't asked to talk about that.
The precise danger here is that, if you allow for revocation in cases of fraud, you say, well, we've already got it on the books, so we'll let it into some other cases. We'll allow for revocation in cases of certain kinds of crimes. You can see exactly how that goes. That's called a slippery-slope argument, which means that we have every reason to expect that we would go down the U.K. route and say, well, okay, is statelessness really that bad? We'll just keep them in Canada and they can be protected in Canada even though they don't have Canadian citizenship.