Okay. I would have thought that eight hours would be sufficient time to decide how many meetings you need to discuss an issue. It perplexes me quite a bit that it isn't, but it obviously doesn't satisfy them, so I'll continue.
Initially, in the motion we were discussing, we offered up three meetings, which we thought made a lot of sense based on the fact that this is a common sense solution to a very common problem. It's a common sense solution that needs to be addressed quickly, and it needs to be addressed with a lot of sobriety and seriousness and relevancy. I think it's important that we hear from expert witnesses who will contribute to good decision-making at this committee.
In essence, the bill provides our law enforcement agencies with much-needed tools to address the issues they face today with regard to the aspects of public safety, national security and terrorism. I believe it was the Liberals about a dozen years ago who passed the original anti-terrorist legislation that we have. This bill is merely an amendment to that earlier provision, which addressed the issues of that day and the threats that were perceived at that time.
We know that terrorism activity has evolved over that time. The threats are new; the locations are new. We know from listening and watching some of the videos that have been posted online that there have been direct threats against Canada and our infrastructure here. In particular the West Edmonton Mall has been cited as a potential target. So it is important that we discuss this. It is important that we come up with legislation that will give our law agencies the tools they need to properly do their job in protecting us as Canadians.
I'm disappointed that early on, at the outset, before any study of the actual bill, the NDP came out very adamantly and said they would not support the bill, even though we heard today from their members that they believe this legislation is very important. I find it interesting that it's very important, but they don't support it. To me, that's troubling, and I don't quite understand it.
One of the other things I heard from the opposition member here this morning is just in reference to the Supreme Court decision striking down some of our long-standing prostitution laws that were on the books. The direction given to the Houses of Parliament to discuss the legality of prostitution is a big issue. We're not discussing the legality of terrorism. We're discussing amendments to an existing anti-terrorist act that will allow our law enforcement agencies to have the tools they need to address the threat that is perceived and real today.
The committee time allocated to the discussion of the legality of prostitution was 13 weeks. That was a completely new discussion. We're not discussing the legality of something. We're making amendments to provide better tools, current tools, modern tools, for our law enforcement agencies. If we could do the prostitution committee work in 13 weeks, I think what has been offered up as a subamendment by our government—eight meetings, plus an additional meeting with our ministers and officials—is more than adequate to get enough expert testimony around this committee table to provide us with the details we need to make proper and good decisions.
I would also like to highlight a few of the things the bill will talk about, even though I don't think this is the time to talk about the bill. It's the time to talk about how many meetings we need to have, so talking about the bill at any great length actually defeats what we're trying to do here: to establish the amount of time required to discuss the real issue.
Mr. Chairman, I think I will wrap up my comments with that. I think the time allocated in the subamendment, eight meetings, with an additional meeting with our ministers and officials, will provide this committee with over 50 expert witnesses and is far more than what this committee will need to make a good decision on any amendments that we may need to consider here in moving this bill along.
I think the threat we have is real. We read earlier today in information provided by CBC on their website that up to six individuals from Quebec have now joined the jihadist people with ISIS and ISIL. The threat is very real.
We also heard this morning and from earlier news articles that the mother in Alberta whose daughter had been radicalized and who joined ISIL forces wishes very much that our law enforcement agencies would have been able to communicate to her the actual threat that they experienced as a family and that radicalized their daughter.
This bill is important because it will give our law enforcement agencies.... It makes consequential amendments to other acts, but it does this so that it enables us to share information. When my constituents have talked to me about the bill, they have expressed concern. They can't believe that our government agencies are not allowed to talk to each other. Someone goes to the passport office and fills out an application for a passport, and the passport agent who feels uncomfortable with some of the answers that have been provided and who suspects that maybe they're being motivated by terrorist-type activities isn't allowed to communicate that to the proper authorities to alert anyone of the potential threat. Either the individual might be about to encounter a threat, or the individual might themselves be a threat to national security.