Mr. Chair, I would submit that this is not a question of whether I like or dislike them. It's a question of privilege for members of Parliament, and it is unbecoming for the parliamentary secretary to suggest that material presented is untruthful. I say that she's skirting the boundaries by not actually using the word, but the vocabulary of “ insinuates” and “wild” certainly treads very close to the boundary.
I have not made such allegations about some of the things I've heard from the parliamentary secretary, and I would not do so because I think we must accord each other that respect here in the House of Commons.
As to the substance of what she just said, I think she just made my point inadvertently. What we're actually saying about this bill, and the reason I raise the issue of resources is when you have limited resources—and the government has limited the resources. That's a fact that you can see in the budget. It's not a wild statement I'm making. Since 2002 those resources have been reduced. So when a bill comes before us that suggests we're going to expand the activities of CSIS and that we're going to expand the number of people who are drawn into this net, then it's very clear to me that we do have a contradiction that we need to examine in the committee. How can we expect these agencies to take on larger tasks and broader tasks in the context of fewer resources? As I said earlier, this also goes back to the elimination of the position of inspector general because, as we see in the estimates that were just tabled, SIRC is given an increase of I think $10,000 in the new estimates. How is a review body like SIRC, which has been given big responsibilities to begin with, going to be able to provide review of these broad new activities of CSIS with a $10,000 budget increase? That's simply not to be believed.
The material I'm presenting is based in fact. Among the witnesses, and I'm going to go back to this because it's about witnesses before this committee, at the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence—and everyone knows today why I'm not particularly happy about the Senate on a personal basis—was the CSIS director of operations who presented testimony saying they did not have enough resources. I think we need to have the benefit of having a witness like that. If the parliamentary secretary believes that the director of operations of CSIS was incorrect, then let's have CSIS officials here and ask those questions. She is entitled as a member to challenge what was presented as evidence before the Senate, that they lacked enough resources to monitor the 90 people.