Mr. Speaker, that is not what my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette said at all. I am sorry, but that was really not a very profound question.
I will go back to something the hon. member mentioned earlier about the definition of a terrorist. Maybe I misinterpreted what he said. He said that someone who is religious could be there, that there is a symbolic element in a terrorist act. There is obviously violence in a terrorist act, but it could not be personal.
I submit that converting to another religion that has some members who preach violence obviously has a religious connection. It does not get any more symbolic than attacking Parliament and the National War Memorial, or the people there. It certainly does not get any more violent. When someone has espoused or incorporated those kinds of beliefs, it becomes personal. To use the member's own definition, but maybe in reverse, that is a terrorist. That is what those people are.
Nobody here is a terrorist. Nobody is saying that. Nobody is saying that anyone here supports terrorism. That is just plain silly.