Madam Speaker, the essence of this bill was expressed in a prominent exchange between the former prime minister and the current Prime Minister in the Munk debate during the election campaign, which some see as a defining moment, a turning point, in the campaign. Therefore the essence of the bill is not a surprise to the Canadian people, who voted for a Liberal government on October 19.
The hon. member was talking about Canadian values and accusing the Liberals of believing that there are no Canadian values, which I found to be a slightly outrageous statement. Liberals believe that one of the clearest expressions and codifications of Canadian values is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The United States does not allow for the revocation of citizenship as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Some European countries that were cited by the hon. member do allow for revocation, but their systems of law are not as similar to the U.S. system of law as ours.
I will quote Dale Gibson, a legal historian in Alberta, who, in comparing these laws in different countries, stated that “...surely the American legal system is considerably closer to ours than many of the European ones” that allow revocation of citizenship. The U.S., unlike Britain, has a constitutional bill of rights.
Therefore, I would like the member's comments on the fact that the United States, which has a very prominent war on terror, does not allow for the revocation of citizenship.