I appreciate that, and I'm trying to differentiate in my head what was said at meetings previous to today's and make sure that I don't repeat myself.
One of the arguments I've heard for why this bill needs to go through is that there is a feeling from my colleagues across the way that they have more than accommodated the concerns raised by the opposition. We disagree fundamentally, because we believe that they have not addressed the concerns we've raised, nor have they given us the latitude we need in order to bring forward the different witnesses who want to come and present before this committee.
When we are talking about the existing and future impact of terrorism, history informs us a lot about how we deal with things today, but history also informs us of where the gaps are. To that effect, I do hope you will indulge me as I say that in regard to the Air India bombing terrorist attack, there are many who still feel that, even with the laws that existed, a lot more could have been done. They are still waiting for their day, for justice.
At the same time, when I'm looking at this piece of legislation that has opened up the scope and is giving far more powers without any additional oversight, and when I keep hearing that every time we're looking for more time to study the bill that somehow we're being obstructionist, I find that a little bit unfortunate. More than a little bit unfortunate, I just think it's disrespectful.
There is a phrase I've used many a time in my career: let us agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable. It is okay for us to have different perspectives and different points of view, but agreeing to disagree also means giving the people you disagree with the opportunity to express their point of view and to hear from the witnesses, because not to hear that opposite point of view is disagreeable in itself.
I certainly hope that as parliamentarians, as we have these very adult conversations where we're making decisions that are going to impact Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we will do the due diligence and the thorough oversight that is required, and we won't use the fact that a certain party has a majority to shut down debate and to shut down expert testimony.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to end for now. I have a lot more to say, but I'm sure it's going to be a long evening, so I'm going to go away to committee and then come back. Thank you.