I'll comment on a number of your observations, and I'll also include Mr. Ménard's last statement.
With all due respect to free media, which I certainly respect and I will always defend, surely, sir, you don't accept everything you read as always being truth or reality without verifying it. I'm not suggesting there is an attempt otherwise, but it's always good to check--as I know you do--two, three, or four sides of any story. The media may well present one side of the story or one person's view, but they don't always present the other side.
As far as the hunger strike goes, there are medical practitioners who regularly check on prisoners. This is not an uncommon occurrence within detention systems, to see prisoners who choose to go without food for a period of time. Some of them may go without a meal or two a day, some of them go without food during the day, but they take sustenance during the evening. They are also checked regularly by medical practitioners. They are allowed family visits.
Again, they are free to leave these facilities at any time, should they decide to go back to their country of origin. I realize some would also suggest that depending on what country that is, they may face repercussions. I respect that. That's why they have the appeal process.
I guess the bigger question is--and I would put it back to you--do you think there should be no provision? When we live in a day where terrorists have claimed the lives of thousands of people--and in this heightened atmosphere of terrorist activity, I'd be curious to know your view--do you think there should be no extra security provision at all for Canadians, especially one that has been tested by the Federal Court, as I said, as recently as September 2005 to be constitutional?
I know it's being tested again, but it has been tested a number of times. It is a constitutional process. The facilities are checked regularly by a variety of people. They are allowed contacts with their families; they're allowed access to a telephone, and reading and writing materials; they can have daily outdoor exercise and essential medical and dental services.
Are you saying there should be no extra security provisions at a time of heightened concerns related to possible attacks on Canadians? I'd be curious to know that. I'm not asking that rhetorically; I'm asking it sincerely.