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.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
I fully realize the composition of our Parliament. As a democrat, I will always uphold a democratic decision.
I do have a concern, however. In my previous occupation.... I know that parties that form the government at one time or another can, and probably do, look upon every issue as setting a precedent. If every person or every prisoner in this country wanted something from somebody, and said the best way to get whatever you wanted was to go on a hunger strike, would we be wrong or right in always acquiescing or trying to make accommodations for individuals or groups of individuals, and change the way we do things specifically because of that situation?
A person's health is a very important thing. We have a responsibility to make sure we provide the necessities of life and take care of people whose freedoms we limit and curtail. It's a personal choice, but I am very worried that we will begin to change the way we do things, change the fundamental way governments operate, and change policies because somebody doesn't agree with something.
It's important to take care of people's health. I think we should afford every Canadian, every person in our custody, equal access or ready access to health professionals so they can guard their health. But I am really concerned that we will begin to change the way we do things. Maybe I am not seeing the whole picture, so I'd like to keep an open mind and listen to other people's points of view.
I know that Mr. Comartin cares very much about people, but to get what I want from somebody, if I put my life in jeopardy, my health in jeopardy, is it right for me to expect people to change the way they do things significantly, change the rules? That's my concern right now.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I got the answer to the question I wanted to ask. That will be all, thank you.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay.
I have a question, Mr. Comartin. In part a. of your resolution you use the words, “open discussion with regard to a resolution”. Do you want the minister to discuss with the inmates? What are you referring to--an open discussion between whom?
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I think Mr. Cullen has already made the point that there are limits on what the minister can do. It would not be him. It's really the second part of it--that the government appoint the correctional investigator to play that traditional role.
I realize we are crossing jurisdictional mandates here. It could just as easily be a retired judge or somebody else of that status, or perhaps the ombudsman in Ontario. I don't really much care who it is. It's just that the correctional investigator is the most logical one in these circumstances.
To answer your question more directly about opening that discussion for a resolution, there are other people who have been acting as intervenors. They may be able to act as brokers, so some of them may be people with whom we should be discussing this.
The real problem we have is that the head of the agency, who should be taking on the process Mr. MacKenzie is speaking about, has almost washed his hands of it. Complaints go in, and there's no response to them other than them being denied. It's in that kind of discussion we're talking about that something meaningful has to go on.
If you were a convicted murderer you would get greater access to your families than these three men. They haven't even had access to their families in six or seven years, and two of them have children. It's that kind of thing that we need some attention paid to.
Let me just say this to Mr. Norlock. Over my career there have been a number of times when I've had to deal with people who felt so compelled to act, including sacrificing their own health by going on hunger strikes. He is very right that every time we confront that we have to ask whether we should be responding to this.
It's not just these three individuals who I care about. I hardly know them, but I care about Canada's reputation. We have to do more in responding to these circumstances. They haven't been charged. They don't know the evidence against them. They're not getting any kind of meaningful legal representation, and what legal representation they've had is cut off from knowing what they're charged with. In circumstances like that, I think the state's responsibility is to bend over backwards to respond to this kind of conduct on their part.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The reason I ask is if you refer something like this and pass it, the first question they will ask is what you mean by open discussion. Open...is that public?
Mr. MacKenzie.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I want to respond to one of Mr. Comartin's comments that they haven't had access to their families. I believe in actual fact they have access to their families almost every day. What they don't have are private conjugal visits.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
They can't hug their children, Mr. MacKenzie; that's the point. This man has a young child. He hasn't touched his child in seven years, since he was a baby.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I don't know whether people wish to comment, so I guess the next thing is to take a vote on this.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Yes. I just want your assurance that this will be prepared by way of a report and will go back to the House as quickly as possible.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
NDP
12:55 p.m.
Conservative