I listened very carefully to what Mr. Edelmann said. I'm actually not sanguine or insensitive to the points he raises. I don't propose that these are easy issues with easy solutions.
I'm also mindful of something Professor Winter said, which frankly I'd not fully considered, about what the consequences of deportation can be not just for the individual but also for the environment or the locale they go to. It's why I think, as I acknowledged in my comments, the government's position offers some compelling arguments in its favour, including, as Mr. Edelmann said, not differentiating between different Canadians: those who were born here or those who were naturalized as Canadians.
But I still can't escape the fundamental philosophical problem I have that when we talk about a convert to a particular religion as opposed to somebody who was born into that faith, they're making an active choice. They're making a declaration that for whatever reasons, that faith resonates with them. It's something they want to embrace.
When they do something to so fundamentally offend the values of that particular faith community, or in our case the values of Canada as a society and a country, then there has to be some kind of response. There has to be some kind of consequence. It may not be revocation. There may be other remedies that could be contemplated. But surely the insult to Canada requires some kind of recognition and redress.