Citizenship Act  Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the regards from my wife's aunt. My in-laws would tell voters during the election, “Don't worry, we checked him out much more than you ever will.” When it comes to the issue of sending people to other countries, let us be very clear about the revocation of citizenship.

Citizenship Act  Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the great work of this member on this issue. He is absolutely right on this point. In addition to the underlying philosophical problems with the approach the government has taken, it is clear that there are a lot of strange contradictions in the bill.

Citizenship Act  Madam Speaker, it will be at least as brief as the question. The member said, “Oh, no, in our bill, Canadian citizenship cannot be revoked—unless”. That is exactly the point. We do not believe Canadian citizenship can be revoked unless there is fraud or terrorism involved. They changed one of the unlesses, but there is still an unless.

Citizenship Act  Madam Speaker, I usually start by saying it is an honour to participate in this important debate. However, I have to say that this is a particularly important debate, one of the most important we have had thus far in the House, because we are talking about what Canadian citizenship means and the core aspects of Canadian identity.

Citizenship Act  Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. It is always good to hear the personal stories of members who came to this country or whose parents or grandparents came to this country. It is important to me that our country accept the principles of both diversity and shared values, and that if people step outside of those shared values to a certain extent, then they have chosen to step outside of the Canadian family.

Citizenship Act  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate, because we are talking about Canadian identity and whether we would require, for those who are going to remain citizens, that they buy into a certain basic set of principles, like not being involved in terrorism. I will read a quote from the Prime Minister and ask the hon. member if he agrees.

Citizenship Act  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and the excellent work he does. I would like to talk about the previous government's experience. We have heard so much misinformation from the other side about the government's record. We know that under our government, we had the highest sustained immigration levels in this country's history.

Citizenship Act  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for participating in this debate, but it is unfortunate to see what has been the strategy of the Liberal Party when it comes to the original Bill C-24 and then continuing on. That strategy was to spread misinformation about the bill and the effects of those provisions, and then to warn us that the bill was creating fear when in fact it was the misinformation about the bill, not the bill itself, that was creating fear.

Petitions  Mr. Speaker, over the last several months, I have had a chance to travel across the country and speak to many people about the importance of the Office of Religious Freedom. I have a petition signed by literally hundreds of Canadians, predominantly from the greater Toronto area, calling on the government to renew the office to continue to do its good work.

Citizenship Act  Madam Speaker, the member spoke very eloquently and passionately, but I did not hear much discussion of the substantive content of the bill. The effects of the bill, as we know and as we have heard in the House, is that if a person with a Canadian passport travels to another country and is involved in genocide or is involved in terrorism, things that are clearly at odds with our values, we do not have a way of revoking that citizenship.

Citizenship Act  Madam Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Agincourt always speaks eloquently, even when I do not agree with him. He is so good at making bad ideas sound good. When it comes to this idea of fundamental principles, he gets at something important. When people choose to reject all the things that characterize Canadian values, when they do not buy in by trying to use the good name of Canadian citizenship to engage in violent terrorism against Canadians, against innocent people, against our values, is there not some point at which people can effectively take themselves out of that citizenship by their own convictions and actions against Canada, against Canadian values, against innocent people?

Citizenship Act  Mr. Speaker, it is striking how the government caucus is so keen to spread absolute misinformation about the existing bill that is being changed. Liberals gloss over the fact that this bill strips citizenship from convicted terrorists, that nobody needs to worry about this bill unless they plan on committing an act of terrorism.

Citizenship Act  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech and her excellent work in general on this very important file. I believe, and I think our caucus believes deeply, that citizenship needs to have value. In fact, it is many new Canadians who particularly appreciate the value of that citizenship, perhaps in some cases because they have had experience in other countries with more challenging environments.

Foreign Affairs  Mr. Speaker, there is a paradox in the way the government is responding to these questions because, on the one hand, it is clear that Liberals recognize that Ambassador Bennett and the office have done very good work since the office was created. Some of the original critics said all kinds of things about this office being a partisan thing or about political pandering, but clearly those who observed the record, and clearly the government observing the record and the experience of this office, know that in fact that is not the case and the office has done very good work.

Foreign Affairs  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to again ask the government what it is going to do with the Office of Religious Freedom. We and others have been asking it to put ideology aside, to recognize the good work the office has done and to simply renew its mandate. The office is working, is doing good work, and should continue doing that work.