Debates of March 12th, 2002

Supply

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, we in our party believe we need a stronger commitment to our national police forces. We need to see a government that is in power, in place and ready to show that it is committed to maintaining the peace. That begins when the police officers do their jobs and take into custody those who have been charged with perhaps terrorist activities. We need a penal system which does not have a revolving door on the front of the institution where we can move them in and move them out as quickly as we can.

Some of the quick answers to the question that the hon. member brought forward would be the elimination of section 745 of the criminal code, the faint hope clause. If a terrorist is found guilty of first degree murder and is incarcerated, we want to ensure that the terrorist will be in prison for a minimum of 25 years and not be given any glimmer of hope after 15, 16 or 17 years.

As long as we are talking about prison, we want to be very sure that we are not housing them in prisons like club fed. We have seen this at William Head where there are cop killers right now.

We also want to see statutory release. There is a whole gamut of issues that the Canadian Alliance has continuously brought forward to bring justice back into the legal system, to bring justice into a system that sadly and sorely lacks. We want to ensure that the police force in this country, the RCMP, which is the frontline of defence against terrorist activity, receives proper and adequate resources.

We even heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General today throw out figures which have been thrown out continually. Big figures have been announced time after time, but then we find out they are stretched out over six years.

We want to see a commitment with the cheque book to our police force, to CSIS and to all those. The amounts that have been given by the government show that there is no commitment: $200 million for the police; some $300 million for CSIS; $200 million for the RCMP; and $700 million against the gun owners of this country.

With regard to the ports police, we believe that whichever police establishment defends our ports and our port regions has to have access to the resources they need, whether the ports police, the RCMP or whomever. However we cannot continue to pull forces away, allocate them to a different areas and expect what they were involved in before to continue as before.

We need to see those forces at ports of entry with the proper resources to adequately defend our ports.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion today. I would not limit the implementation of the national security policy to just ports of entry, ports police or police or CSIS or that sort of thing. I would include in the implementation of a national security policy such things as: ports police; the border crossings themselves; the prison issue, as my colleague has talked about; the issue of how to deal with terrorists in the country; and the issue of drugs in the country. The courts of our land, the parole system, the RCMP and CSIS are all national security.

I agree with the PCs who put this motion forward today that we do need an overall guiding policy. It does not have to get into the detailed operations of any one of those items, but it should lay out the general terms and conditions upon which we in our country will operate in terms of national security.

For instance, Samir Mohamed is a good example. One might say that is under the immigration law. It is and it is not. It seems there is no guiding philosophy on an issue such as Samir Mohamed. This fellow is a terrorist. He was pinpointed as a terrorist by one of his colleagues in giving state's evidence, Ahmed Ressam, who was on his way to bomb the L.A. airport and got caught going through Peace Arch Crossing.

Samir Mohamed tried to get into Germany, which deported him immediately. He tried to get into Britain and he was thrown out. In 1997 he came to Canada. We said he was not a legitimate refugee but he could stay and so he stayed from 1997 onward. He undertook fundraising for terrorism while in Canada. He was involved in distributing guns in Canada.

Then he reapplied for refugee status last year. Meanwhile, after September 11, the Americans said they wanted him and asked Canada to extradite him from British Columbia to Washington or wherever he was to be held. Canada said it had to have an extradition hearing for him. The hearing was held, which I was at, but then it was delayed.

I would like, Madam Speaker, to seek unanimous consent of the House to pass at all stages Bill C-333, an act to establish and maintain a national registry of sex offenders to protect the children and communities of Canada, first read in the House April 4, 2001. The reason I ask for it is because of the disgusting attendance in the House by the Liberals. I will be doing so as long as they keep up this kind of attendance.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, let it be known that the Liberals should be on their toes when they have this kind of disgusting attendance in the House that--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member has been a member of the House since 1993. I believe he is aware of the rule that we do not mention the presence or absence of members in the House, although the hon. member does have other options if he wishes to have attendance in the House.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will now get back to Samir Mohamed after that brief interruption. Samir Mohamed is wanted on an extradition order by the Americans. Meanwhile, this fellow has had yet another extradition hearing which has been put off again until next September. The Americans have said “Wait a minute. This guy is a terrorist. He is in your country. You know he is a terrorist, but you will not send him out”.

This is one of the underlying themes of why I would agree with implementing a national security policy. Surely somebody in the government must be able to say it is the government's overall ideal, its overall objective to ensure issues of national security are dealt with.

This guy is a colleague of another individual who was going to blow up the LA airport and he is still in our country being protected by lawyers and the system through extradition hearings. I would bet my bottom dollar this guy will still be here in five years.

Does the government not care about issues like that? Does the government not have a theme upon which it works? Could it not introduce some kind of national security concept that would not allow this fellow to be here? Not only is this guy a risk to Canada, but the Americans want him in relation to terrorist activities.

As another example, a young fellow from Laos, a non-Canadian, was put in prison because he was involved in beating a young man to death with a baseball bat. While in prison he applied for refugee status to stay in Canada and he got it. After a 15 minute hearing he got it. Is there nobody in government who works on a national security theme and thinks that should not happen? After he has done his time, does the government not think he should be kicked out? That is why it is necessary to have a national security theme.

Madam Speaker, in the best interests of the House, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to pass at all stages Bill C-333, an act to establish and maintain a national registry of sex offenders.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Members have heard the hon. member's request. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, somebody watching this might think I am wasting time, but the reason I asked for unanimous consent to implement a sex offender registry is that we have been trying to get the government to do it for a number of years and it has not. The only way to get it done in the House is to ask for unanimous consent when nobody is around because everyone in opposition seems to agree with it. When they are absent from the other side, that is the best thing to do.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are well aware, Madam Speaker, of the procedures in the House and some of the protocols about attendance and absenteeism, et cetera and the pressures on all members of parliament for their attendance within the House. I find it troublesome that the member who is speaking would draw the attention of members and all viewers to the absence of some of our members and would berate us while he in fact is only accompanied by one member of his party.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I believe I have already mentioned it to him, but I will also say to the hon. member not to do the same thing in the opposite direction.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of difference being in opposition and being in government and being vacant in the House.

I support the implementation of a national security policy which includes a lot of things. It includes a philosophy of not retaining known terrorists. It includes a cleanup of our prison system. It includes trying to clean up our country's drug problem. None of these issues has been adequately dealt with by the government.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech my colleague highlighted some unbelievable examples of the failure of the government in terms of national security.

His riding borders the United States. It is not far from my riding. The ridings of my colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley and my colleague from Fraser Valley also are very close to the U.S. border.

A few years ago I went on a ride with the RCMP. My colleague has done similar things as well. It is unbelievable that there are only four RCMP officers allocated to cover the entire border from White Rock on the west coast of British Columbia to the Alberta border. There are four police officers to cover that entire area.

How is it that we can have a secure border when the resources are not allocated to that very important task on which the Liberal government is failing to deliver? How is that possible?

Because of those absences of responsibility by the government in patrolling our borders, there is a free flow of people, weapons and drugs across our unprotected border. How is it possible that the government could defend that kind of inaction?

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, we do live on the border and it is impossible. It is a philosophy that kind of escapes me from a government's point of view.

In my riding there are two formal border crossings but between them lie miles and miles of woods and fields. About 10 minutes from my house there is a little ditch and a bunch of trails going across the border. One of them is called the Ho Chi Minh trail. At night the police sit and watch and try to apprehend people, when they can find them, transferring marijuana south for cocaine in return, transferring people south for money and guns in return, transferring alcohol in return for money, and on and on it goes.

About six members of the armed forces are asked to look after that whole area. Those six people work shifts. The problem is that the bad guys do not operate from nine to five. They usually operate at two, three and four in the morning.

It is impossible to watch the whole border. The traffic flows freely. I would be happy to show anyone the beaten down paths.

There is a lack of a philosophy and a lack of an overall concept of national security. Anyone who thinks this does not happen on a daily basis is kidding themselves. Drugs in, money out; marijuana down, cocaine back.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member agree that what is needed is more infrastructure?

Not only is it needed at border crossings but I would suggest the same applies in many instances to the ports where there is entry from the water. Part of the recommendation coming from the other place included references to things like closed circuit cameras and fencing.

Similarly is there not more that can be done in terms of prevention and background searches? I am speaking in particular about having a screening system in place where individuals might be identified, particularly when container ships come into port. Could there not be an effort made to co-ordinate those entities coming into the country and would this not also tie into the problem of information sharing? As we all know, part of the overall picture of which my colleague speaks is in terms of information sharing between CSIS and the RCMP, but I would suggest it also includes immigration, customs and other countries.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that there needs to be more communication on these matters. I do not think we are going to get it in terms of systems unless there is a change in philosophy.

For goodness sake, we are still dealing with a government that has given a passport to a dangerous sex offender in a prison in my area. What does the government think this dangerous sex offender is going to do with a passport while in prison? He walks down to Washington state, he does some kids and he comes back into Canada, escaping. That is a philosophical problem in this country.

I worry about some of the fundamental problems that are not being addressed. To ask for some sophistication from the government is a high expectation.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to advise the House that I am pleased to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel. I would also like to add that I will not be touching on the discussions that took place this morning regarding procedural issues, as this was debated for one hour. In my opinion, the Speaker of the House of Commons has quite a hot potato to deal with. It will be interesting now to see how he will get rid of it.

There has been much debate about the proposal before us. As far as we are concerned, there is a problem with the wording of the motion. The comments made my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford only serve to demonstrate this fact. He was already quite happy to broaden the scope of this motion, particularly when it comes to implementing a national security policy.

Obviously the motion refers to areas where we agree that actions must be taken, whether it be at ports, borders—I will comment on this briefly—and in particular, the relevance of Parliament in these matters. However, when it comes to a national security policy, this is quite different in scope, and this scope is interpreted in almost individual terms. Everyone has their own ideas about where action should be taken. As I mentioned, my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford certainly does, and this is what concerns us.

Yesterday we remembered the events of September 11; it was six months ago to the day. Immediately after the events, the Bloc Quebecois took a very responsible attitude by telling the government, “We will support you”. This was done in a general manner. We said, “We would not, however, accept too many restrictions on the freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians, because if this were to occur, if we get to the point where we are violating freedoms, the terrorists will have won”.

So when the government introduced the first bills in response, we mostly supported them at first and second reading. However, we reached the point where we felt that the government crossed the line that must not be crossed, the line that violated the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians.

As an example, there is Bill C-36, the famous anti-terrorism bill. There are all sorts of things concerning human rights, the protection of privacy and access to information, where, in our opinion, people's rights were trampled on.

Consequently, we wanted to put forward important clauses ensuring that there would be a time limit. Everybody remembers the “sunset clause”; it was said that there ought to be a review after three years. Unfortunately, the government did not listen to us. It brought in a so-called sunset clause, which is not really one. It was made meaningless because it applies only to two things: detention and another concept that is minor to us. The government should have done more, in our opinion.

The same thing applies to the bill's definition of terrorist activity. Terrorist activity was very broadly defined, and that concerned us, because we believe that anyone could be considered a terrorist, even a person who throws a rock at a police officer during a demonstration. Some Liberal members had stretched the concept to such an extent. We believed that it was going too far. So we voted against the bill at third reading.

It is the same thing with Bill C-42, the infamous omnibus bill that amended 20 pieces of legislation. We had a lot to say about military security zones, because we know what this means. The War Measures Act had a terrible impact on Quebecers, and we do not want any bill to give the government the go ahead to inflict such hardship on the public again.

So, Bill C-42, the omnibus bill amending 20 pieces of legislation, is just another example I wanted to give concerning military security zones. We were also afraid that many other provisions in that bill would violate the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians.

The motion brought forward by our friends from the PC/DR Coalition is not totally negative. I am also concerned about the security at our ports and harbours. In fact, a Senate committee has released an excellent report describing their concerns about this issue. I think security in this area should be reinforced.

Will voting on this motion, as it stands today, automatically lead to more severe measures? I am not sure about that. I have more bad than good to say about this motion. However, I wish to remain positive and tell my friends from the PC/DR Coalition that they did raise some very interesting issues. However, we still have problems with the way the motion was drafted.

The motion also mentions borders. Only yesterday, I gave an interview to TVA because, in my region, we are very concerned. My riding borders on Vermont and the State of New York.

We have learned that, after a very arbitrary test, a number of regular customs officers who had always received excellent appraisal reports were let go and replaced by students. I want it known that I have nothing against the students, but the government seems to be taking a penny wise and pound foolish approach right now, to the detriment of security.

Under the legislation, the people laid off had been given increased powers; they could use pepper spray and other means to stop terrorists. They could use handcuffs or a baton, which the students cannot. By replacing these customs officers with students, the government is saving approximately $10 per person an hour because they were paid $20 an hour. When security is ignored, there is a problem. That is the point raised in our colleague's motion. But unfortunately I do not think that the positive aspects are enough to offset the problems with the motion's wording.

It is the same when it comes to parliament's relevance. It is very clever to include it in the motion because, in fact, Bloc Quebecois members have been saying that the government is not transparent enough. Furthermore, only yesterday, I told a Journal de Montréal journalist that I had learned more in a three hour briefing session with the Americans in Tampa Bay last month than during the entire period following the September 11 attacks.

The Americans assembled parliamentarians, explained to them where the special force was, how many were taking part in it, and what operations were next. We do not have that here. Parliament is kept in the dark. When I say parliament, I do not mean the cabinet; I mean opposition members and Liberal backbenchers. They do not know what is going on, except when they attend a briefing such as that given by the National Defence chief of staff last week, at which he explained in very vague terms what is happening.

This is deplorable. Things have gotten to the point that when the Minister of National Defence announces that he is going to send troops somewhere, we are told: “The troops will be leaving tomorrow, but tomorrow night you will have a chance to discuss this in the House because we are going to hold a take-note debate at that time”. This is a new label for empty debating with no opportunity to vote.

It seems to me that, when issues as important as deploying troops are concerned, it is essential for Parliament to be informed, for them to be fully debated, and for members to have the opportunity to vote.

I was elected as an MP in order to speak and to advance my views. Doing so, however, does not just mean speaking out. We also need to be able to rise and announce how we will be voting on behalf of our constituents. This is a rarity, particularly in connection with security matters.

As far as the government is concerned, their culture is still one of secrecy. The Minister of National Defence, along with a small group, has given himself the exclusive right to decide on security, and then to advise us of the decision. We are told after the decision has been made “If you do not like it, you can express your views in a debate that will not lead anywhere because there will be no vote”.

I find our colleague's motion to be a skillful one, but unfortunately as I have said, it is not worded sufficiently clearly as far as implementation of a national policy is concerned, one which underlies all manner of bills that go far beyond this, such as C-36 and C-42. Unfortunately, I must inform my colleagues that we will have to find other ways of solving these problems.

This motion is not going to be the way to do it, because it implies a number of negative impacts as far as restricting the freedoms of Canadians and Quebecers is concerned.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleague's reservations would not hinder him from supporting the motion as it is worded. I think he, all members of the opposition, many backbenchers and perhaps members of the government, would agree that the government has failed to implement a national security policy to address the broad range of security issues. Certainly we could agree on that.

We might have disagreements as to the implementation of such a policy. In the motion, coalition members are stating first and foremost that the government has failed to implement a far-reaching national security policy.

I hope that the member would be able to focus on that part of the motion and then work within the framework to encourage the government to address how we get to solving those problems in parliament. The second part of the motion deals with those relevant issues of addressing security and other important issues here in the House so that members, regardless of their party and region they represent, are able to have that debate and have an opportunity to influence government policy. Would he agree with me on that point?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, precisely, this may be where the whole problem lies. The hon. member who just spoke cannot give me the exact definition of a national security policy. Since he cannot provide that definition, this means that all members in this House present their party's view or their collective view.

Earlier, I mentioned that the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford spoke at length on the registry of sexual offenders. Another one will deal at length on another issue, while another yet will say that Bill C-36 or Bill C-42, which I tried to define earlier, did not go far enough. As for us, we say that the government went too far.

Until we have a definition of security policy, it is hard for us to give our support. I could be asked “Do you agree to change the national defence policy?” This is not in the motion, but I could include it, because it is indeed a security policy. I would say “Yes, I agree on a new white paper, because the existing national defence white paper is based on the 1994 white paper”. We are now in 2002 and the situation has evolved extremely quickly, as evidenced by the events of September 11. We could never have imagined what happened. Ours was a typical national defence strategy, and it was based on previous wars.

If the motion said that, I would support it. But we do not know what it says. I could also interpret it and say “The Minister of Foreign Affairs should also align his policy with that of national defence, so as to know how to intervene in various existing conflicts”. This is my personal interpretation, based on a part of the motion that is vague enough to allow everyone to give it their own interpretation.

Indeed, the problem is that we cannot support such a broad interpretation. The motion should be much more specific. Again, this is why we cannot support it.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, for having presented most of the Bloc Quebecois' position on the question of freedom and security. My colleague is absolutely right.

The great challenge for democratic society, following the events of September 11, is to try to protect our values and freedoms while guaranteeing security throughout the country and Quebec, as far as we are concerned. That was the great challenge.

The proposal moved by the Conservative Party and the coalition is to implement a national security policy.

If we look at what the government has on the shelf, Bill C-42, which my colleague from Saint-Jean spoke to so well, we see that this is a bill that violates our rights and freedoms, as far as we are concerned. When a bill allows the federal government to create military security zones without even asking the provinces for authorization, then it is a violation of the rights and freedoms of the citizens of these provinces and of Quebecers, who are our chief concern.

When ministers are allowed to declare special zones of intervention in areas comes under their departments' responsibilities—there are more than 12 ministers who could order this type of zone—and once an order is given, it need not meet the requirements of the Privy Council when regulations are passed, in other words, to test if it conforms to the charter of rights and freedoms, rights are being violated. So, ministers are allowed to issue orders which may contravene the charter, which would come into effect immediately and which could later be validated or invalidated depending on the charter of rights and freedoms. Many powers are being given to authorities and to ministers without the authorization of this House and without the authorization of the Privy Council, and at the same time, powers are being given to officials who advise the ministers. We saw what happened with the Minister of Health, who authorized expenses that breached the Patent Act.

This is the difficult reality, respecting individual rights and providing security at the same time. This is not clear in the proposal moved by the Conservative Party and the coalition.

We must remember—and this will allow me to get into one of the parts of their interventions, which is enhanced security in Canada's ports and harbours—and never forget that, in 1987, it was the Progressive Conservative Party that deregulated transportation throughout Canada. It is this party that entrusted port or airport authorities with the responsibility of managing security. It decided to entrust the private sector with this responsibility and thus ensured that the government would no longer provide money for security.

The Liberal government is using the same strategy. It talked about airline security. It decided to invest $2.2 billion over five years, but it chose once again to impose on users a tax of $12, or $24 for a return ticket. This tax has been condemned by all the travel associations throughout Canadian regions and by the whole airline industry. However, this is the strategy that the Conservatives had used at the time.

And we are supposed to believe them now? They want a new policy on security, but they never talk about the fact that it will take public money to really be able to have an integrated policy.

Nowadays, they rely on the famous Senate report. The Senate report was based on a 1996 analysis. They show percentages of port workers who allegedly have criminal records. However, when we look into this, we see that unions do not maintain a file on criminal records, nor does the employer.

So there is no structure in place to keep track of port workers' criminal records. The simple reason is that these people are those who are carrying out trans-shipment; they are not in charge of security. A Senate report informed us last week that there are alleged criminals among workers, while no port worker has been accused of trafficking or whatever in the last 20 years.

Once again, they are attacking workers. However, the great majority of them, in fact almost all of them, are not responsible for the situation. They are guilty of nothing at all. No port worker has been accused of traffic in the last 20 years. Today, the Senate is saying, “There is a lot of corruption, infiltration on the part of those who work in ports, the stevedores, those who do transshipments, but who are not in charge of security”.

Are we to blame the employees for a failure that began in 1987 under the Tories? That is what they have done. After the events of September 11, they accused the employees, those men and women who work in airports, of not having done their job properly. For decades now, year after year, there have been cuts to security services. The private companies was made to pay for that, and it turned to the lowest bidder. Well, we got what we paid for. That is the reality.

Nothing in the Progressive Conservative Party's proposal says that the government should invest some considerable amount of money, that it should increase the number of security workers in ports and airports. We should give them decent salaries and ongoing training.

There most certainly was no ISO security program for employees involved in either port or airport security. They have no ongoing training; there was no on the job training. Thought was given to it after the events of September 11.

This all dates back to 1987, with the beginning of deregulation. The administration of ports and airports was entrusted to the private sector. All the companies that would benefit from these infrastructures had to meet their costs, so obviously they opted for the cheapest, and this had the effect of providing less security. We know what happened as a result.

Today, efforts are being made to remedy this. National security policies are wanted. The Bloc Quebecois says again: if there is a national security policy, it must not encroach on the rights and freedoms so dearly won over the entire course of the history of Canada, and of Quebec in particular.

This is a challenge for a great government, which leads me to conclude that the Liberal Party will never be a great government. It has always governed full speed ahead, but what will always differentiate it from a great government is that it has never been, and will never be, capable of making the right decisions at the right time.

Once again, this is what the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party and the coalition does. As an opposition party, they do not yet know how to move a real motion, which might have resulted in some money for the whole security issue, both in ports and in airports. Port and airport workers could then be given more responsibility, decent pay and appropriate training. It would ensure that all those working in security services would have a chance to live in a safe environment, with respect for individual rights and freedoms.

It is with regret that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party and the coalition. In our view, this motion does not go far enough to protect individual rights and freedoms. Nor does it go far enough with respect to the contribution that should be made by the Government of Canada, which is building up a surplus in the billions.

In answer to the questions asked by the Bloc Quebecois yesterday, the Minister of Finance was unable to forecast the surplus for the period ending three weeks from now. We will see in a few weeks. He refused to answer the question. As we well know, the surplus will be over $9 billion. This amount, or at least a good portion of it, could have been used for such things as security, thus making it unnecessary to impose a $12 and a $24 tax on air travel, which will once again overtax the regions of Quebec and of Canada.

I repeat, when the government wants to discourage people from smoking, it increases tobacco taxes. In this case, it is increasing taxes on air travel. It creates a tax on air travel and thinks that it will encourage people to take the plane.

The Bloc Quebecois will therefore have no choice but to vote against the motion put forward today.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is quite simple. My hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois knows very well the role municipalities play in security matters. Does he think that municipalities should play a major role in port security for instance?

Does he agree with the Senate committee calling for a public inquiry on security? We have heard claims that some employees have criminal records. Is it true or false, and what percentage are we talking about? Would he agree to a formal public inquiry, sponsored by parliament, to examine the issue of port security?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the issue raised by my colleague is quite relevant. To restore public confidence, we need to set up a new structure for port security personnel. It is wrong to broad-brush everyone working in our ports and airports.

For all those who have to enforce security measures, it would be normal and even acceptable to have the RCMP or CSIS create a committee that would bring together all the various stakeholders, including representatives from municipal, provincial and national police forces, with the consent of the unions involved. I do not think the port and airport workers' unions would disagree with that. They could even attend the committee proceedings. We should not do what the government tried to do yesterday, which is to exclude security personnel from the committee proceedings.

If we can work with the national, municipal, provincial and federal security authorities, with the workers' supervisors, I think we can come up with a policy that would raise the levels of efficiency and probity of security personnel at ports and airports.