I'm of the opinion that it would be better if these matters were addressed through a committee of Parliament—people with security clearances—with perhaps some sessions held in camera, not publicly. I would rather see it as part of the regular parliamentary process. I'm not aware of any other country in the world that has anything comparable to our process, and I am concerned about whether it can be as effective as the committees of other parliaments in terms of ensuring that our public safety and national security agencies are being fully accountable to Parliament and that they are providing parliamentarians with the information they need to draft or change legislation to better meet the threats.
One example I can offer is our legislation on the transfer of classified technologies to agents of a foreign state. I have had the honour of working for the RCMP in preparing some cases on these. When the cases were sent to the Department of Justice—the two I know about—they were not acted on because our legislation is too weak and it was felt that the people alleged to have been traitors to our country by transferring classified technologies to agents of a foreign state would not be made accountable for it.
Our legislation does not compare favourably to that of other nations more successful in this. The British and the Americans are doing dozens of cases a year. When was the last time you heard of anybody prosecuted for this in Canada? To the best of my knowledge, never. This is a problem. It means we are considered a good sort of place for people who want to tap into our high tech through various legitimate or illegitimate means, and that just shouldn't be the Canada that we are.