Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will relate it back to the topic at hand at the moment.
What we have written into our textbooks and what is told to our kids, and what goes on in the the relationship here, is very, very significant, and it's very much tied to the subamendment to the amendment. One of the things we teach our students, or that I did, is the rigorous stages that any piece of legislation goes through, first through debate in the House and then at committee. I was actually under the delusion before I came here that most committees worked on a consensus basis. Apparently it used to happen like that, but it doesn't anymore.
Even if it doesn't, there is still this feeling that it's at committee stage where the in-depth, detailed study occurs. I want to remind my colleagues that it was only yesterday or the day before that one of the parliamentary secretaries said in the House that this is the stage where the in-depth, detailed study needs to take place. In order to do that in-depth, detailed study, we need to have that extra time. That's how it relates to the subamendment.
Mr. Chair, I'm also seeking a bit of guidance from you.
It was my understanding that in the morning the chair did open up the scope of the discussion to matters related to existing and future terrorist threats. I certainly heard many government members speaking to the issue of terrorism. I just want to make sure that my understanding is correct.