Evidence of meeting #98 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm worried about the interpreters. We've had a number of instances where a poor connection has led to poor sound quality, and that has serious consequences for them. Personally, I don't think the sound quality is good enough for Ms. Michaud to proceed, but you can check with the interpreters. They can tell you whether the sound quality is good enough for them to do their job safely. As you know, Mr. Chair, a number of interpreters have been injured in the past, so I'm worried.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Can we suspend briefly, so I can reconnect through Zoom?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Hang on, Ms. Michaud.
We'll suspend and check with the interpreters. The clerk is doing that now.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was saying that I signed the request made under Standing Order 106(4) allowing us to hold today's emergency meeting for the sole purpose of dealing with the specific issue of Luka Magnotta's prison transfer. The purpose wasn't to re-examine Paul Bernardo's case. We've already met a number of times on that. I more or less agree with what Mr. Julian said. This study shouldn't be a continuation of the one we've already done, in my view.
In this case, I think it's really about setting the record straight and reassuring the public. In the past few days, a lot has been said about this transfer, which took place in 2022, by the way. It didn't just happen. Luka Magnotta was transferred from a maximum-security facility to a medium-security facility a few years ago now.
As I see it, the motion is more about the process, which—may I remind the committee—is apolitical. The Correctional Service of Canada has a protocol in place for the transfer and security classification of inmates. As per the statement that came out earlier in the week, Canada's corrections system is fundamentally based on rehabilitating offenders, even if they remain incarcerated for the rest of their lives. That is the legislative mandate of the Correctional Service, which says that it regularly balances factors such as risks to public safety; safe, secure and humane treatment; and victims' rights.
The Correctional Service of Canada's policy dictates that a security classification review be completed at least every two years for inmates classified at maximum or medium-security level and that they be placed at an institution with the corresponding level of security.
Understandably, then, a whole protocol is already in place, and that's what the Correctional Service officials told us when they appeared before the committee with respect to Paul Bernardo's case. I think it's important to have the officials back so they can explain it to us again.
We also need to hear from the warden of the La Macaza Institution, so she can explain how it operates. Is it true that inmates there live more comfortably than most Canadians? Is it true that they can take part in tennis, skating and other such activities? What conditions do inmates there live in? I think we need to hear that directly from someone at the La Macaza Institution.
I don't want to make this into a big to-do. I don't see the need to hold six meetings and hear from multiple witnesses on this specific issue.
There is, however, something that bothers me about Luka Magnotta's transfer. In the past, he had asked more than once to be transferred, but his requests had always been denied. Apparently, his last request was granted because he said he was transgender. He was assessed by a team of psychologists at McGill University, and they were skeptical of his claims, but that seems to be the reason why he was granted a transfer to a medium-security facility. If we should be questioning anything about Luka Magnotta's transfer, that may be it.
As parliamentarians, we can't start meddling in the transfer of every inmate in Canada. We cannot do that, and it's not our job.
This is probably a good opportunity to have Correctional Service of Canada officials explain to us again the protocol and legislation they have to follow when assessing and transferring offenders.
For those reasons, I have a number of changes I'd like to propose to the motion. I will read the motion and flag the parts I would amend.
The beginning would stay the same, in other words, “That, in light of the transfer of sadistic killer Luka Magnotta out of a maximum security prison to a medium-security prison”. I would then remove everything up to “the committee”.
I would delete the word “immediately” before “undertake”. I would replace “study in priority order, of no less than six meetings” with “study of one meeting”. Then I would delete “, and that these meetings begin this week,” but I would keep the part that says, “on how the decision to make this transfer was made, the prisoner transfer process for prisoners in maximum-security facilities, and the committee report its findings to the House”.
The part that says that the committee “call the following witnesses to appear” would stay, as would bullet (a), “the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly”. It's important for the committee to hear what she has to say. Bullets (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) would come out, but I would keep bullet (g)—“the Warden of La Macaza Institution”—and bullet (h)—“representatives from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers”. Bullet (i) would come out, as would the parts added further to Ms. O'Connell's amendment. Lastly, I would add a representative from the McGill medical team that examined Luka Magnotta's case to the list of witnesses to be called.
I hope my fellow members will agree with me that this isn't the time to play politics. That seems to be what some parties are trying to do, and it's wrong.
I think the way to better understand the process and reassure the public is to figure out whether Luka Magnotta's psychological or psychiatric evaluation was flawed and why he was transferred. We could certainly question his medical team about it, and we could get answers about the transfer process from the Correctional Service of Canada officials, but that's all. We cannot start challenging every prison transfer of every federal inmate. Otherwise, it will never end. As I already said, that is not our job as parliamentarians. We are talking about an apolitical process. Turning it into a political issue is wrong.
As I said, I think we should get rid of the part about the committee holding six meetings on the matter. One meeting is enough, in my view. Furthermore, this study shouldn't take priority over our other work. We are in the midst of examining Bill C-26, and we should finish that study before we meet on this issue. The same goes for our car theft study. It should take precedence over this one.
I repeat, Luka Magnotta was transferred in 2022. If Mr. Caputo hadn't visited the La Macaza Institution, we wouldn't be here today. I, myself, visited the Port-Cartier penitentiary two years ago, but I didn't make a big fuss about the individuals I saw there.
Again, the process has to remain apolitical.
I hope that my fellow members will agree with me that we need to narrow the scope of the motion to address the core issue—Luka Magnotta's transfer.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, I'm not clear if Madame Michaud is moving a motion. Is an amendment being moved?
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Yes, that was an amendment. I'm not sure whether the clerk took note of the changes I was proposing or whether he'd like me to send them to him in writing.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, I heard her move the motion. If we could suspend to get the exact wording, I'd appreciate it.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Simon Larouche
Yes, I did write down the changes you proposed, Ms. Michaud, but I'd like to confirm them with you.
According to my notes, everything after “medium-security prison” up to, but not including, “the committee” is being removed. The part that reads, “immediately undertake a study in priority order, of no less than six meetings” is being replaced by “undertake a study of one meeting”. The part that reads, “and that these meeting begin this week” is being removed, so it would say, “a study of one meeting on how the decision to make this transfer was made”. The part that follows stays exactly the same up to the list of witnesses. Bullets (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (i) are being removed, as are all the bullets that were added further to Ms. O'Connell's amendment, which was agreed to by the committee. A bullet listing “representatives from the McGill medical team” is being added at the end of the witness list.
That's what I have in my notes, Ms. Michaud.
Bloc
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Can we suspend for five minutes just so the clerk can put that in writing?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
We can reconvene the meeting. The clerk has sent around the amendment. I'm going to get the clerk to read out the amendment just to make sure we're all clear on it. It's an amendment to the motion as amended.
Go ahead.
The Clerk
That, in light of the transfer of sadistic killer Luka Magnotta out of a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, the committee:
1) undertake a study of one meeting on how the decision to make this transfer was made and on the prisoner transfer process for prisoners in maximum-security facilities, and report its findings to the House; and
2) call the following witnesses to appear:
(a) the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly;
(b) the Warden of La Macaza Institution; and
(c) representatives from the McGill medical team.
This is how it would read in French:
Que, à la lumière du transfert du tueur sadique Luka Magnotta d'une prison à sécurité maximale à une prison à sécurité moyenne, le Comité : 1) entreprenne une étude d'une réunion sur la façon dont la décision de faire ce transfert a été prise et sur le processus de transfert des prisonniers dans les établissements à sécurité maximale, et fasse rapport de ses conclusions à la Chambre; 2) appelle les témoins suivants à comparaître : a) la commissaire du Service correctionnel du Canada, Anne Kelly; b) la directrice de l'Établissement de La Macaza; c) des représentants du Syndicat....
Actually, I think bullet (h) is being removed. Isn't that right, Ms. Michaud?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm voting against the amendment, but there's a difference between the English version and the French version. I believe the French version is the right one in this case.
The list of witnesses to be called included representatives from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Mr. Julian, are you saying paragraph (h) is stricken in French and it should be stricken in English, or are you saying the opposite?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
No, I'm saying it is not stricken in French and it shouldn't be stricken in English. Madame Michaud can clarify, but that's what I heard.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
That's correct. The union representatives are supposed to stay on the list in both the English and French versions.