Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to clarify what I think are some serious contradictions in the remarks made by the member for Winnipeg North.
Much of my colleague's argument was based on how upsetting it was for the government to bring this forward in the wake of such a recent event as the unfortunate, tragic incident at the marathon.
This happened so recently that we still have no idea what he means when he talks about a potential plot in Canada.
Does it make sense to criticize the government for acting on that pretext and then turn around and do something even worse?
Then there is the matter of preventive detention. Is the Liberal Party okay with the idea that an individual can be detained preventively even if there is no proof against him other than a notion that he might someday be associated with terrorism? We did ask for that to be changed because it creates plenty of opportunity for terrible mistakes.
How can they support that? How can they refute the government's argument, then turn around and suggest something even worse? I am trying to understand exactly what the Liberals are saying. I do not understand.