Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask the whole table about this. You heard my initial monologue, if you will. I won't call it a soliloquy. It did talk about part 1, and we are talking about subamending part 1.
Within the whole issue of getting through this bill, I think all the officials here would agree that the issue of lawful access has come before Parliament many times, most notably in 2014, I believe. It has now been 12 years. The Internet has changed substantially.
I'm not going to ask every person to go through this one more time, but my impression is that from an official's point of view, speaking objectively, there is a need for lawful access. That's why we're all here. That's what we have been told. That's why we had a number of people from your agencies come to committee and tell us that we need the powers that are in this bill.
We have parted company, obviously, on the precise powers that are in the bill and whether those should be granted in the form of legislation or whether those should be tweaked or not. At the end of the day, it has been very clear from officials and from witnesses that the current state of crime and the evolution of technology require new tools. I think there's no doubt about that.
Where I think we haven't gotten into the meat and potatoes is the “why”. We've been told, “We want to catch terrorists and want to catch predators.” It is the job of the government to convince Canadians. It is not the job of the opposition. The job of the opposition is to scrutinize and to ask questions on behalf of Canadians. That's where I think part 2 has really broken down.
Would any of the witnesses be prepared to say that, yes, part 1 is integral to what we do, and these are powers that we need sooner rather than later? Is anybody prepared to acknowledge that?