With regard to the bill itself, at the very first meeting we heard from the national security agencies that there were legislative gaps here in Canada. This bill speaks directly to what have been identified as gaps for our national security agencies.
Surely we must recognize that those who need the tools are the best people to tell us what needs to be done. Again I'm going back to the fact that it's very unhelpful that we're hearing misinformation being put out. It's interesting that there were protests not too long ago, and funnily enough, none of those protests would fall anywhere under the guise of this bill.
Unfortunately, those people who were protesting don't know that. They think that protesting is going to somehow be illegal and that they're going to be thrown in jail or labelled as terrorists. Those protests were actually an example of what is not covered under this bill.
I'm hoping that message gets out.
We heard as well, when we talked about borders being meaningless—I think it was you, Professor Davies, who talked about that.... I think this is what is different between now and 30 years ago, when the CSIS Act was first created.
We heard from prior witnesses about modernizing and about the fact that the terror threat is ever-evolving. I'm glad you mentioned the fact that there's no longer an organization to infiltrate or the head of a snake to cut off and that we have to be flexible and be able to adapt—I believe you used the words “adaptable legislation”—so that as things change, we don't have to come back here next month or next year and rewrite this legislation again.
Is that what you were referring to?