Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member comments on some partisan comments from other parties in the House and goes on to make the most partisan statements I have heard on this issue in the House. Sometimes I cannot figure this place out.
The member referred to the opposition day motion and that he could not support it due to some specific points. I would like to remind him what this motion said. It stated:
That this House call upon the government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation similar in principle to the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act, 2000, and that such legislation provide for:
the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada;
a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism, and provisions for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations;
the immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism;
I do not know which of those things the member found difficult to support. The motion continues:
the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training--
I do not know why he would have a problem with that.
the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism--
Is there a problem with that? I cannot really see why.
the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.
The member for Winnipeg--Transcona said that he could not support the motion because of the specifics we attached to it. They are very broad items that should be included in legislation. I would like to know exactly which of those points the member felt he could not support and which led him to vote against our supply day motion.