Yes, that's correct.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
My question is for Ms. Saperia. You have made an interesting parallel in your numerous interventions between the citizenship revocation and the social contract, a pact between the state and its citizens. Citizens consent to abide by certain obligations towards the state in exchange for other benefits. However, on this particular approach, the Canadian Supreme Court has declared that the social contract requires the citizen to obey the laws created by a democratic process, but it does not follow that failure to do so nullifies the citizen's continued membership in a self-governing polity. Indeed the remedy of imprisonment for a term rather than permanent exile implies an acceptance of continued membership in the social order.
As you can see, the Supreme Court of Canada does not share the idea of the social contract as a compelling argument to justify citizenship revocation. What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court's statement?