Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the hon. member's conviction that we need to stand forefront for religious liberties across the world.
I heard him say that the biggest struggles in the world today were solely religious liberties. I would like him to look at Cuba where, just yesterday, women were arrested for exercising their freedom of speech to protest against the Castro government, or at countries in Africa and in the Middle East where gays and lesbians are subject to capital punishment for something we consider a fundamental freedom here, and to recognize that there are many rights throughout the world that are deserving of our protection.
There are so many things in the House that we generally agree upon. We fight back and forth about nuances.
Had this motion been worded to say that the government recognize everything that is in (a), the good work that is being done, and (b), that the existing work of the office be continued in the same or a different broader format, I think there would have been unanimous agreement in the House and we could have all gone forward, talking about how we all agree with religious freedom.
Why was it necessary to write the motion to ask that the government continue the existing mandate without saying that that we simply agree that we want to continue the valuable work the office has been doing in the same or a different mandate, where it would have had support from the government?