Absolutely not. In Canada, when you take a citizenship ceremony, it's a two-way street. They say that you have an obligation as a citizen, but likewise, a country has an obligation to its citizens. One of the obligations all governments around the world are supposed to adhere to is to protect the rights of their citizens and make life better for their citizens. It's not a cost function.
The court in this case, in Bjorkquist, did not say, “Protect these people up to a certain price tag.” It said that this a right—done. There should be no issues on the money. Actually, when it comes to the money, it's interesting. Bill C-37 was a Conservative bill. It's almost as though this side and this side switched places, because years ago, 20 years ago, when I was sitting in the witness stand, the Liberals were saying the same thing about security background and knowledge. It was exactly the opposite, except different parties.
For the Conservatives, I have the interim leader on camera saying that it's an irrelevant issue: So what if it's 200,000; we need people. This is not an immigration issue; it's a citizenship issue. If you're going to start taking away rights of citizens, what do we do? Do we take away the entire citizenship of everybody in Victoria? No. It's a citizenship issue. They have rights, and they are quite within their powers to expect the government to protect their rights.