I am just picking up on what the member said. He said that it was political ideology.
If we strip that away, what are we talking about? We are talking about housing. We are talking about education. We are talking about foreign aid. We are talking about public transit. All of a sudden those things are suspect?
I would say that the member has to answer to his own local community as to why he would be opposed to additional funds going into those elements that people are really crying out for.
We should never mind the political ideology. What we are doing in this little corner is being very pragmatic. We want to make sure some things are accomplished in this minority Parliament. It is not about propping anybody up. It is not about condoning corruption. On the contrary, it is about getting something concrete done.
With regard to the gentleman in British Columbia, I totally support his right to freedom of expression and religious expression. How could one do otherwise? If that becomes the subject of some sort of challenge, that is what happens in a democratic society. When things get challenged they go through the courts, which is why we have the charter.
This is not about saying that one right is more important than another right but I think the hon. member is going down that road. We are saying that equality is a fundamental right for gays and lesbians and that freedom of religion is a fundamental right, and they are not mutually exclusive. I think it is a shame that the debate is so often presented in that way by the Conservative members.