Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague when he outlined some of his government's responses.
Some of his comments run directly contrary to the findings and recommendations of the Senate report. In particular it speaks of the hiring and handling of shipments at ports not being in the hands of the port authorities and often not in the hands of individual companies. In many cases it is in the hands of the union. There is literally no guarantee of a national standard if there is no national standard pertaining to security at the ports.
I am glad he mentioned the port of Halifax. Given the downloading of responsibilities and the cuts to Ports Canada, policing, the military, our coast guard, all of it has an eventual cost in terms of our ability to provide security.
The municipal police in Halifax have been doing an extraordinary job under the circumstances. The reality is they have responsibilities for the entire municipality of Halifax. If they get a call about a break and enter they are going to leave the port.
The direct involvement of a full time ports police presence with specialized training that has jurisdiction from customs and revenue, immigration, the criminal code and jurisdiction over the court itself, to mention but a few, would surely provide a better level of security. The member also mentioned fencing and some of the other physical barriers that could be put in place, as well as cameras.
Does the member not agree that a specialized police force could provide a service tailored to ports and the specific threat that is posed at the ports?