Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the spirit in which the member has spoken, but there are a few comments I would like to make with reference to what he has stated.
The anti-terrorism act that the government passed in 2001 was done after the incidents in the U.S., after 9/11, but not after the worst terrorist disaster in Canadian history.
He also talked about banning two terrorist organizations, but there are still terrorist organizations and fronts for terrorist organizations in Canada, according to CSIS. They are still here. They have not been banned.
The government has done only band-aid solutions. It is only window dressing to address some particular organizations. There are still organizations that have been declared terrorist organizations by the United States but not by Canada, as the member from Okanagan—Coquihalla has mentioned a few times in the House. Also, this was done 16 years after this tragedy actually occurred. As well, the Prime Minister and many members on the Liberal side have attended fundraising dinners for terrorist organizations as late as only two to three years ago.
The government's approach is not a holistic approach. It is only a band-aid solution and it is not working.
My particular comment for the member from B.C. is this. I have an article here from Straight Talk of September 30, 2004. In it, the Hon. Geoff Plant from British Columbia states:
--the minister of justice [then Martin Cauchon] threatened to cut off $6.5 million in support funding for the Air India case if we [British Columbia] maintained our position with respect to funding immigration-and-refugee legal aid.
Why would the government shamefully tie Air-India investigation funding or the Air-India investigation to something completely different?
I would like to ask the member, if he has the audacity, to state how the government dared to use the Air-India bombing investigation funding as leverage to have the British Columbia government cave in to its demand, which was tied into the immigration and refugee legal aid funding.