It's in the amended motion, as amended by Mr. Dykstra.
The members opposite have mentioned that they support the courts. Clearly, if somebody has been convicted of a serious crime in Canada or has been convicted of war crimes, then they should not be allowed to stay in the country. I can't imagine how the members opposite can suggest by any rational means that somebody convicted of a serious crime in this country or convicted of a war crime should be allowed to roam the streets of Canada. It defies logic, to me, that I have to go back to my riding and tell the people in my riding who are begging me to find a way to remove this particular gentleman, who was....
Mr. Chair, criminality issues might not be a serious thing to the members opposite, but if they would pay some attention, or at least keep their noise level to a minimum, I'd be appreciative.
It defies logic, to me, that the members opposite would not support a motion that would see people convicted of the worst crimes sent back to their home, to Sri Lanka. Why should I then have to go back into my riding and explain to the Tamil business people that this type of gentleman will be allowed to stay in Canada, that he—in this instance—will not be deported back to Sri Lanka? He will be walking the streets, because the previous motion said no one, under any circumstances, will be sent back to Sri Lanka. That's what the previous motion said, Mr. Chair: no one will be convicted, or—