I don't disagree with the proposition that there is revocation based on misrepresentation. It's built into the treaty on statelessness as well.
My suggestion—and perhaps the example of permanent residence is a good one—is that historically we have removed the status from many more permanent residents than citizens. The process is relatively straightforward. There is an allegation made by the minister. You go to the immigration division. If the immigration division finds that you misrepresented, an order is issued and you get a chance to go to the immigration appeal division.
But not all misrepresentations are the same. If, let's say, 25 years ago you came here as an engineer and your engineering diploma was not in fact genuine, and you were from more of a technical trade, in those 25 years, you've had children, grandchildren, and whatever; you're established here. There may be reasons for not taking away someone's permanent residence in those circumstances today.