Thank you.
I do not believe that the provisions should be repealed, and I do believe they should be amended to ensure the tightest possible configuration of the law, because revocation of citizenship is indeed a very serious consequence. My remarks focused on how to strengthen the law. For instance, on the terrorism side of it, I felt that it might be too broad and there might be cases where committing a terrorist act that had absolutely no Canadian connection is therefore not a crime against Canada as a country. Therefore, the revocation of citizenship may not be the appropriate response.
But in cases where the crime is not just a crime under the Canadian Criminal Code but a crime against Canada as a national entity, I felt that by virtue of a person's actions that might forfeit the right to Canadian citizenship. This has nothing to do with discrimination. This has nothing to do with putting up roadblocks, certainly not for any particular community. This is about people's actions. What they choose to do has certain consequences, which may include the revocation of citizenship.
Citizenship is simply not an absolute category. It is and always has been a legal construct, so, as you point out, there already are cases in which citizenship can be revoked. It is not the case that the law introduced, for the first time ever, a mechanism for revoking citizenship. There are already categories that exist. This simply created another one, which again I feel was fitting given the crime.