Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to ask a quick question.
I gather from the evidence heard by the committee that the 1,095‑day period set out as a criterion in Bill C‑3 was already included in the Citizenship Act as a model for permanent residents to obtain Canadian citizenship.
Under the Citizenship Act, the 1,095 days must have been accumulated over a five‑year period. According to the proposed amendment, this period remains the same, but the entire model established by the officials also remains the same. I don't see how this could be considered unconstitutional. The 1,095‑day period is based on the model already found in the Citizenship Act. Logically, the period set out in the Citizenship Act would apply to Bill C‑3, the model would remain the same and everyone would be happy.
Is that right?