Madam Chair, all I wanted was to just rebut one point made by Ms. Kwan.
I spoke with Senator Yonah Martin just this morning. She doesn't like what's happening with her bill. Just to reiterate the points she had made, amendments made to the original parts of her bill were entirely okay with her if it was to correct wording that the department deemed necessary in order to address the original principle of her bill, which was to help a small group of lost Canadians between 1977 and 1981. Those were the people they wanted. We got expert testimony from the department that the new wording was necessary. She was okay with that.
Now we are going through it clause by clause, amendment by amendment. The scope has been expanded, so we can consider other matters that would reduce the number of lost Canadians and that would reduce the potential for a person to be stuck in an endless queue on their citizenship application. This waiver that's being proposed on compassionate grounds, I think, meets the principle of the bill. It's well within the scope of the bill.
I will also add that, in testimony at the Senate, at the time there was discussion and debate. One witness said, “That said, if amendments would delay the passage of this bill, then please pass it as is.” Since we're not doing that, it will take a little bit more time.
In the grand scheme of things, the grand scope of things, I'd rather do a good job this time to make sure, for all the matters we would like to consider for lost Canadians and for the changes to the Citizenship Act—like I've said before and have said in the House, I consider this now a statutory review—that we do these properly instead of quickly. Quickly usually leads to unforeseen consequences.
I see an opportunity here to plug a hole and to help stop more future lost Canadians.
Thank you.