Evidence of meeting #30 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was training.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Okay. I will just raise my concern. I do not think we should deal with Bill C-286 until we have a royal prerogative.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
And l apologize to the committee, because we thought we were on the way to another solution to it.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Yes. So we don't have anything on our agenda for Tuesday or Thursday yet.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Before we started this study on the arming of Canada Border Services Agency officers.... I don't really know what the plan was, but it seems to me that before we wrap up this study we should have the minister here, Stockwell Day, because this was a political decision and it's the minister who is ultimately going to be accountable.
I think Tuesday's probably a little short notice, but I think we should get the minister here before we wrap up this study. That's my view.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay. Well, we don't have anything on our agenda for Tuesday, so I'll see if maybe we can have a planning session Tuesday for half an hour or an hour. Instead of having witnesses, should we do that?
Conservative
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Why don't we do that Tuesday? Obviously, we can't get the minister for Tuesday, so—
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay, let's have a meeting on future business on Tuesday at 11 o'clock, for half an hour or however long we need. That's what we'll do Tuesday, and take it from there.
Do you have the budget in front of you? Oh, of course, we'll deal with that Tuesday.
Mr. Comartin, the floor is yours.
Conservative
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
No, in public.
Mr. Chair, I think everybody has the motion in front of them. I think we're pretty well all fairly knowledgeable on the issue, the incidents that we're addressing in this motion, so I will try to be as brief as possible.
Essentially, what the motion asks is that the government pay serious attention to the three detainees in Kingston who are there subject to security certificates and who are on a hunger strike. In one case, we're into 70 or 75 days; the other two, somewhat shorter.
Mr. Chair, what the motion really attempts to do is to get the government to bring the office of the correctional inspector in, which is there as a standard position to deal with complaints from all other inmates in our federal institutions. Because these three individuals are there subject to security certificates and are in fact there under a very specific mandate, the corrections investigator has not been allowed access to them.
The information we have is that the office is prepared to be involved, but they have to be directed to do so by the Minister of Public Security because it is beyond their normal mandate because of the nature by which the three detainees are incarcerated in the institution.
It's my understanding further, Mr. Chair, that simply by the minister's allowing the investigator to undertake an investigation, the three individuals would then, feeling that they will get some justice in their complaints, stop the hunger strike. All three of them are in seriously failing health.
In that regard, I want the committee to be aware that a similar motion was put forward at the citizenship and immigration committee and passed, but it was significantly amended to give the investigator specific issues to address. I'm not asking for that in this committee. The real purpose behind this is that because security certificates are within the scope of this committee's responsibility, we should be putting forward what our position is with regard to the manner in which these three men are being detained and what should be done to address the crisis.
I and my party feel it's important that we pass that message on to both the House and to the minister.
I'm moving that motion. I understand we have fairly widespread support, but I did want the committee to be aware that it also has been addressed at another committee that has some responsibility for this area.
Conservative
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
The citizenship and immigration committee passed that resolution and it passed it on to Parliament. I assume it'll be reported or tabled either today or in the early part of next week.
I would ask that we do the same.
Conservative
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you.
I'll probably be supporting the motion.
If we go back, it was the Liberal government that decided to move these people being detained under security certificates. Many of them were in provincial institutions, because it was less than two years, but some of them were incarcerated for longer periods than that. I think it was the new government that went about to implement that, to move them to Kingston and set up the operation there.
So I wasn't aware that the Office of the Correctional Investigator did not have that jurisdiction. It seems to me that if they're in a federal penitentiary, they should be covered by that officer.
But what we want to do here, it seems, is end the hunger strikes.
In the last Parliament, there was discussion—I think there might have even been a motion—for members of the committee to actually attend at one of these facilities to witness first-hand what's going on. I think the Minister of Public Safety went to Kingston, but because of legal issues he wasn't able to actually talk to them.
I'll support this motion, because I think that has to be done, but it might be useful to actually go there and make sure that the government has followed through and has put them in a unit, a facility, that is humane and appropriate.
One of the things I would like to see happen—I don't know if it's feasible, but I just throw it on the table—is that if committee members, or some of the committee members, would go, they would go only if the hunger strike was ended. Maybe not make it a precondition in those precise terms; the committee members would like to visit the facility and talk to the detainees, but they cannot do that while they're on a hunger strike. I think the bottom line is to end the hunger strike.
I don't know how quickly the Office of the Correctional Investigator can be given this new mandate, how quickly the government will respond, but it's within the jurisdiction of this committee to decide if we would want to go and visit.
The other part of that, I would suggest, is if there is a will, a desire, within the committee to go and do that, and if they end their hunger strikes, at some point, whether it's before or after, we would like to get a briefing from Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada on these detainees. I know some information cannot be shared because of secrecy, confidentiality, and security aspects, but I know in the subcommittee of this committee in the last Parliament that was looking at Bill C-36, we brought the department to the committee.
There was an alleged Iranian assassin who at that time was being detained under a security certificate. The department actually took the committee through the dossier. Parts were whited out, of course, because it might compromise security sources, but it was as much information as could be legally presented and the amount of information that would come through a Federal Court, and so on.
So I throw that on the table. Certainly I'll support this motion, but the bottom line is to end the hunger strike, to make sure they're in a situation that is humane and reasonable in the circumstances, and that the government has followed up on the intent that was set in motion in the previous Parliament.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Actually, I have a number of issues. The very first thing is that it is not part of the Kingston penitentiary system. It is a CBSA facility on the land there, and it is operated purely by CBSA. Going back to part of what Mr. Cullen said, it is absolutely true that the construction of the facility was begun under a previous government, for I think the proper reasons. The provincial people didn't feel it was their responsibility to house these people; it was a federal responsibility.
I think the facility itself was built with the proper intentions. I think, Mr. Cullen, you and I and others have described it many times as being like a three-sided cell. The detainees, as you know, are not there as convicted criminals but are there because they pose a threat and a danger to Canada. They've been through the court system that has ruled all of those things to be the case, and that's why they're being detained. They are free to leave.
They have their reasons for believing they should stay here as opposed to going back to their countries of origin. We concur with all of those things that actually occurred in a previous government's time. We think they did the right thing then, and we think it is still the right thing. But there are a number of issues here with the motion at this time. I understand the reason for it and the urgency in Mr. Comartin's mind. Recently an issue, which is part of this, has been brought before the court in Ontario, so we can't discuss the particular issues because it is before the court. But there is that redress.
The Red Cross has access to these folks and has confirmed that they are held in a humane way. It may not be that it is to the liking of the detainees, but it is humane and proper. There is already a grievance redress process that these individuals who are held in the facility can use and have used.
For a variety of issues, we think it is inappropriate to ask somebody to investigate. We think it is outside of their mandate. You can look at it and say that this is a CBSA facility and you think the correctional investigator should be brought in. There are a lot of other CBSA facilities across the country. If we do it for all those situations in which we have those complaints, or just for this situation because of this particular issue that is before us, I think we are setting a very dangerous precedent when they are in the process of using the courts to address those things.
I'm not sure that the attempt here of having the correctional investigator go in and investigate is the solution in the long-term big picture. At this point, certainly we would be opposed to it. It just doesn't fit the proper mandate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.
We've got Ms. Barnes next on the list, followed by Mr. Norlock and Monsieur Ménard.
Ms. Barnes, go ahead, please.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Thank you very much. I'll be very brief in saying that this resolution has already passed in another committee. The resolution requests that the Government of Canada consider giving a mandate.
I am quite surprised that the parliamentary secretary is even against a consideration of a mandate. I am just saying that's surprising.
I am going to support this resolution. I realize that some might think it's a duplication of an existing process in another committee, but I think there is some area that we need to give consideration to.
I think, Mr. MacKenzie, that considering the ongoing situation in the country, it is worth at least a consideration by the Minister of Public Safety.