There are a couple of things that I want to talk about with regard to the reason this bill is so essential.
We've heard a number of times, and to me it's misleading.... Again, we need to hear from expert witnesses and that's why it's so important that we move on and get those witnesses in. Very specifically, the bill talks about—and this is in regard to information sharing, for example—any activity that undermines the security of Canada. It goes on to describe it as any activity that “undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada”. It's very important and sometimes that's overlooked when we hear comments from the opposite side. The bill then lists a whole bunch of things with respect to national security. This is why this information sharing is so important.
At the very bottom, and it's right on page 3 if we are all able to read to page 3, it is very clearly stated, and I'm going to quote this right from the legislation, “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.”
It's very clear in this legislation. I've read it. I understand it. Some of my colleagues across the way may want to hear from expert witnesses to clarify that. Certainly, that is what our hope is too, to get those expert witnesses in. I'm sure that with 48 witnesses there will be a number of experts who will come in on this particular measure, this one section, which has to do with information sharing.
I think it's so important, again, that as a committee we vote as soon as possible on the subamendment. It's reasonable. It brings in an adequate number of witnesses.
I heard in debate, Mr. Chair, when we were in the House someone from the opposition, an NDP member, talk about how we should be debating this in the House for up to a year. That's absolutely unreasonable. Twenty-five meetings—