Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just reflecting on something Mr. Housefather said in his point of order, I have respect for his proposing a subamendment that's substantive. I assure him I will get to some questions on that because I do have some legitimate questions on that. I did look for him today, but I see he maybe wasn't around. I did want to chat with him about it. I apologize that we weren't able to connect before this meeting.
I concur with my colleague Mr. Genuis in his experience. You made some comments at the beginning of the meeting, and I feel like they deserve some reflection on my part.
Again, I will say that this is an important bill. It's raised a lot of debate. All parts of it, including part 1, including the subscriber “confirmation of service”, which we discussed at the last meeting, and now, as we move into the production order.... We have legitimate concerns over parts of part 1. As we've reiterated several times—and I will do so again for the benefit of the members opposite—we are open to those reasonable amendments and think that part 1 could be dealt with in a more expeditious manner, perhaps if we had more collaboration on it. Then we could at least achieve something that would be beneficial for law enforcement.
We made that offer in the House—I guess it was on Tuesday morning—when Mr. Caputo moved a motion to split Bill C-22 between part 1 and part 2, with the offer that we could work more co-operatively with the government on part 1 with some amendments, which we've been discussing here. If we could achieve a sort of reasonable resolution to those amendments, we might be able to get to a place where part 1 could be dealt with before Parliament adjourns for the summer. Then part 2, which is a whole other can of worms, in my view at least, could go back to the drawing board and get some additional review. I think there has been a process problem, and your comments sort of allude to that. This is not your—