“…..now we have the names”

From the February 28 entry this year under this category:

“The printed material Correctional Service of Canada submitted in response to our information and privacy requests has been reviewed, along with Stephen Fineberg’s translations. Most of the reports, declarations, observations, and evaluations are in French. Just as with the video discs, the delay in analyzing the 40 pages CSC released shows our reluctance to confront what is a difficult event.
Nonetheless, before we comment, further consultation with Brennan Guigue is necessary.”

Brennan saw an obvious contradiction on a first read-through, and when he did focus on these many pages later, he felt comments weren’t necessary. Everything he needed to say was put on paper on July 24, 2014 at Donnacona Institution. “Just another day on the range? The Guigue Summary”, was the first entry on ‘Justice for Brennan Guigue’, posted here on September 26, 2014. What’s important to him with this printed material is that we have the names of all involved.

From the many names on these pages, the correctional officers involved directly in this assault are Steeve Longpré, Eric Charbonneau, D. Nantel, Samuel Penka, and Jean Pratte, acting under the direction of Correctional Manager George Jean-Pierre. Tran D. Nguyen videotaped the event for about two hours. All of these men are employed by Correctional Service of Canada, they are public servants, and on July 22, 2014, they were on duty at RCC (Regional Reception Centre) in Ste-Annes-des-Plaines,
on the north edge of Montreal.

In spite of the words, sentences, paragraphs, and sections that are blacked out, and parts of reports that aren’t filled in, there are interesting conflicts. As a for instance, Samuel Penka’s observation report noted, “My role in this team was to escort prisoner after handcuffed. Prisoner resisting verbally and physically so was gassed with MK().” We have that portion of the video tape, and it’s obvious Mr. Penka ‘misremembers’ how this unfolded, although he filed his report on the same day as the event, and it was counter-signed by George Jean-Pierre.

On the same day again, Correctional Manager George Jean-Pierre filled out his portion of the Use of Force Report. Of the ten questions posed, three are of particular interest.
Total weight of canister before? g After? g (This refers to the canister of OC gas in liquid form, and it is a requirement to note how much is used each time this is deployed. CM Jean-Pierre could not provide this data without incriminating himself and his team in an illegal act of torture.)
Was the forced used necessary and proportionate to the situation at hand?   YES
Were there any violations of the law or CSC’s policies?   NO

Contrast that with the senior managers’ observations. We are including only relevant assessments.

In the section reserved for the Correctional Manager (Operations) [name, signature and date do not appear]:
I am satisfied amount of force used was necessary and proportionate in the situation:   NO
Any violations of law or CSC policies?   YES

Deputy Warden Cynthia Racicot answering the same questions: [section is not dated]
I am satisfied amount of force used was necessary and proportionate in the situation:   NO
Violations of the law or CSC policies?   YES
The deputy warden also attached a note which was not made available.

The section reserved for Institutional Head Stéphane Lalande is dated November 24, 2014.
I am satisfied amount of force used was necessary and proportionate to the situation:   NO
Any violations of the law or CSC policies?   YES

Robert Piorier, Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Operations completed the section reserved for him on January 8, 2015.
I am satisfied amount of force used was necessary and proportionate to the situation:   NO
Were all health standards met?   NO
Any violations of law or CSC policies?   YES

A September 14, 2014 evaluation of the event by Anik Desgagnés, a representative of the institution, was circumspect in its criticism, given its own employees were involved. He contradicted the video evidence at one point, but acknowledged there were “failures.” One paragraph here is blacked out, but continued, “I conclude the staff did not use a good management strategy with respect to the situation…….”

The Regional evaluation was received on December 3, 2014, but the entire section has been withheld.

The National evaluation was submitted on January 6, 2015 by Stéphane Descroches, and noted the status of the evaluation was ongoing and the “file remains open.” This report began by disagreeing with the evaluation and intervention by the institution. Three sections are blacked out. In the end, “…we conclude that the MGS (situation management model) was not respected and the use of inflammatory agents was not justified. The behaviour of the prisoner represented no threat for him of our agents.”

There was further information we requested where CSC simply dismissed the necessity of including it in the package.

Remember, what happened to Brennan Guigue should not be seen as an isolated incident, that all involved are civil servants paid from the public purse, using your tax dollars ( You pay for their underwear! ), and that all are undoubtedly still employed by your government.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s