EVER HEARD AN 8-YEAR-OLD BOY SAY HE WANTED TO GROW UP TO BE A CRMINAL?

So, what in hell happens to those kids who grow up as fodder for the children, youth, and adult justice systems, and the prison industries they feed?  Can’t ask why.  Answers would call for the roll-out to neighbourhoods of considerable public resources.  Social programs.  Building lives through hard work.  Horrors!

Ontario Premier Doug Ford wouldn’t ask.  Bad for business.  He’s willing to risk yet another class action lawsuit by adding third bunks to provincial jail cells, for instance.  After all, lawsuit settlements are paid out in confidence, and Mr. Ford’s the-more-the-merrier attitude to wrongdoers is good conservative politics.  That’s what people see.

It’s a little bit like that adage about closing the barn doors after the horses have escaped, isn’t it?  But we can feel smug and snug though; we’re not the only ones.

We begin initiating future prison inmates in our foster care and youth detention facilities.  As an example, Jennifer Pagliaro, a Toronto Star crime reporter, wrote that “the largest youth detention centre in Ontario is still routinely strip searching boys in their custody….despite a court ruling declaring them unconstitutional.”  Her investigative report published in the Star on January 28 of this year showed that this ‘systemic violation’ became public when the practice was challenged during the trials of young offenders.

The Roy McMurtry Youth Centre in Brampton was front and centre here, but other jails for kids in the province are also under scrutiny.  The court ruling forced a new regulation that prevented total nudity, and that led to a change of practice.  During one trial, a lawyer asked a Roy staff member; “So if (my client) was to go back to Roy McMurtry right now, leave court, go with you back to Roy McMurtry, he’d be strip searched?”  “Correct,” was the answer.  “And the only difference would be, you’d make sure he was wearing his T-shirt when you looked at his penis and genitals and rectum.”  “Correct and that’s following the policy.” 

A plaintiffs’ certification motion for a ‘youth detention strip search class action’ is scheduled to be heard in November of this year.

The point here is not about strip searches per se.  The point here is how our public servants will manoeuvre around the spirit of the law if not its letter to achieve desired objectives that disadvantage the vulnerable.  And it’s done pro-actively.  What does that say to young offenders, many already emotionally and mentally compromised, about the integrity of the society they are expected to respect and the laws they are to honour? 

)()(

Some graduates from the provinces end up in the charge of our federal prison industry, operating under the guise of Correctional Services of Canada.  It is one of the largest federal agencies in the country, currently employing about 19,000 men and women.  Some 13,000 plus of these civil servants work in the trenches, in the institutions as guards; sorry, as ‘correctional officers’ or ‘parole officers.’  They oversee and execute policy for 13,000 to 14,000 inmates serving custodial sentences.  Offenders are their bread and butter.

In looking at the CSC website, potential employees are subject to a screening process and training regimen to meet the Service’s standards.  Successful candidates have a large body of policy statements to observe, usually in the form of what are labelled ‘commissioner’s directives.’  These understandably comply with the mission statement that CSC, “as part of the criminal justice system and respecting the rule of law, contributes to the protection of society by active encouraging and assisting offenders to become law abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control.”

No doubt there are many of these men and women who take their two oaths of office earnestly, while others relish the opportunity to physically and emotionally dominate an inmate ‘underclass’ with impunity.  Despite Correctional Service of Canada’s insistence that adhering to policy is the order of the day, it will twist itself into knots to justify the failures that arise.  Inmates and, yes, some employees, see the mission statement and policies as comedic, meant to temper the public’s perception of prison life.

When Tatal Dakalbab became the latest CSC Commissioner in March of this year, he told the press he was prioritizing “rehabilitation and reintegration.”  Mr. Dakalbab came to this office from Public Safety Canada where he was a Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the Crime Prevention Branch.  He began his career in various positions with CSC though and is aware his priorities are primarily for public consumption. 

Consider that 19,000 public servants rely upon offenders/inmates for their compensation and benefits.  Imagine how many tens of thousands of dependents count on the paycheques and health care coverage.  Think of the businesses and professionals who bank on their patronage.  So when we proposition that the primary job of everyone who is employed by Correctional Service of Canada is to put themselves out of work, inmate retention suddenly becomes crucially important.

Sadly, there will always be people who need to be separated from society.  What we do with them while in custody is a measure of how our society should be judged.  What we do not need is fabricating people who need to be separated. 

“Cells for sale or rent.” from March 17, 2017, and a redux, “Crime dependent…..that’s us?” published July 5, 2020, relayed work in the Netherlands to rethink the use of prisons.  The result was the closure of at least three prisons and 2600 redundant employees.  There are many people of influence in Canada who would not want to face that prospect here.

Baz Dreisinger is a prominent American academic, activist, and cultural critic.  She is a professor of English at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at City University of New York.  One perspective of prison reality is a poem from her “Incarceration Nation.”  We’ve used it twice but it’s worth a repeat.

We want them to be responsible,
So we take away all responsibilities.
We want them to be positive and constructive,
So we degrade them and make them useless,
We want them to be nonviolent,
So we put them where there is violence all around them.
We want them to quit being the tough guy,
So we put them where the tough guy’s respected.

Sir Robert Peel’s ninth and last principle of policing is:-
“The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”
We don’t give our police the help and resources to give that 8-year-old a shot.

This writer worked briefly long ago with a high-energy aggressive 40s executive who hopped from company to company with a mandate to supercharge corporate performances. He had suffered three heart attacks in his career, he said, and was convinced that people don’t get heart attacks, people give heart attacks.  He did eventually succumb to one somebody gave him a few years later.

When managing interactions with governments, and Correctional Service of Canada most often in our case, this man’s far away perspective comes to mind.

Going back again to Letters posted December 31 last year, the December 29 letter to Marie Doyle, CSC’s Assistant Commissioner of Health Services, did generate a response, with a digital signature dated January 23 this year.  Again, as we did last time out, reprinting the entire letter from Ms. Doyle underscores the frustrations when civil servants won’t or can’t deal with reality.

Dear Charles Klassen,

Thank you for your correspondence dated December 29. 2025, regarding the inclusive care for people with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) in CSC custody.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.

Health Services adheres to the Guidance for Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) program (August 16,2021) when supporting individuals diagnosed with a substance use disorder who request treatment.  This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to the multidisciplinary health care team within CSC and is currently under revision.

As noted in your letter, effective October 1, 2025, CSC designated long-acting injectable buprenorphine (Sublocade) as the first-line treatment for opioid use disorder.  This decision was informed by published clinical evidence, specifically, studies related to correctional settings and support by consultation with CSC prescribers and external subject matter experts.  Moreover, this decision was also based on three key elements of the OAT program; improved safety and efficacy or administration, reduced risk of medication diversion, and enhanced outcomes during transition to community care.  To avoid abrupt disruption of care, CSC implemented a six-month transition period (October 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026).

Additionally, as highlighted in an internal memo distributed to Health Services in December 2025, Sublocade is intended to be used as part of a comprehensive treatment plan that includes counselling and psychosocial support.

A psychological treatment plan under the OAT program is delivered by a multidisciplinary team that includes the inmate, the OAT nurse, and the OAT prescriber (institutional physician or nurse practitioner).  Other health care professionals may participate as needed.  The team meets virtually or in person to address significant issues.  With the inmate’s consent, the team may also include the institutional parole officer, social programs officer, Aboriginal liaison officer, and, when appropriate, Elders or religious leaders.  Psychosocial support may include psychoeducation, motivational interviewing, individual therapy, and group interventions tailored to the inmate’s needs and responsivity factors.  The inmate’s information is documented within the Integrated Individual Treatment Plan, which is accessible to all health care providers through the inmate’s electronic medical record.

At the same time, CSC acknowledges that more can be done to improve access to consistent and comprehensive psychosocial supports for individuals with substance use disorders, including those accessing OAT.  Health services will continue to collaborate with institutional teams and partners to enhance access, consistency, and responsiveness of these supports, recognizing their essential role in treatment effectiveness, recovery, and continuity of care.

For individuals transitioning to community care who are interested in the OAT program, Health Services and the case management team coordinate the process, each with defined roles and responsibilities.  Health Services ensures continuity of care by providing prescription information to current medications, access to a naloxone kit with harm reduction education, and information for counselling, either in person of virtually.

I appreciate the time you took to share your perspective.  Your feedback helps us identify areas for improvement to better meet the needs of inmates.  Your concerns are noted and will be carefully considered as we continue to enhance the program.

Thank you again for writing,

Sincerely,
Marie Doyle,
Assistant Commissioner of Health Services.

In earlier exchanges, Ms. Doyle has always been pleasant, polite, and detailed.  She is either a sly fox or a true believer.  We tend to think she trusts that policy on paper is enough to prompt delivery of the services she describes.  If you think her candor equates to credibility, then there is still that piece of land in south-central Florida you should consider buying.

Inmates come to know policy is for public consumption with little parallel to life behind the walls.  Inmates who don’t pay attention to their policy entitlements might be surprised that they’ve been skipped over.  They would be even more puzzled if their Offender Management System (OMS) files listed their participation in one of the programs Ms. Doyle trumpets.  How does that happen?

Why will Correctional Service of Canada not consider partnering with the provincial health-care bodies across the country?

Why does CSC strongly oppose the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT)?

A Saturday Night Live skit in the raw.

“NEITHER PS NOR THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY CONTROLS WHEN A PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW OF C-83 WILL TAKE PLACE.”

Look again at the first entry in Letters….. posted on December 31, 2025, with its short letter to Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree questioning for a second time why he has failed to meet a statutory requirement in Bill C-83, legislation his ministry sponsored.

A response came in an undated letter defending the Minister attached to a March 19 email from the Ministerial Correspondence Unit at Public Safety Canada.  There’s good reason to reproduce that letter in its entirety here:

Dear Mr. Klassen:

Thank you for your correspondence of December 23, 2025, in which you expressed your concerns regarding the absence of a formal review of Bill C-83 (42^nd Parliament, 1^st Session). I am responding on behalf of the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Public Safety, in my capacity as Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the Crime Prevention Branch.

First, I would emphasize that Public Safety Canada (PS) remains fully committed to ensuring that federal correctional institutions are safe and humane environments that support effective rehabilitation and reintegration.  This includes ensuring that the operations of Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) are consistent with the letter and intent of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the provisions introduced as part of Bill C-83.

Neither PS nor the Minister of Public Safety controls when a parliamentary review of C-83 will take place.  That said, once initiated by Parliament, PS will be prepared to contribute to a thorough assessment of the successes and remaining challenges of the SIU model.  The extensive input provided by the SIU Implementation Advisory Panel over the course of its mandate, alongside input from correctional staff, inmates, and civil society stakeholders, will be essential in identifying and implementing potential improvements to the current system.

Ultimately, any findings or recommendations resulting from a C-83 review undertaken by Parliament will be met with serious and careful consideration.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Yours sincerely,

Talal Dakalbab,
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister
Crime Prevention Branch
Public Safety Canada

Mr. Dakalbab wrote the only letter a civil servant could, and his politician boss would do the same.  We are assured that government policy is compliant with “the letter and intent” of the law.  Not just that, but the government is anxious to fully engage in an assessment of its obligations, to meet with all manner of folk in the process, and to ensure it is working for the betterment of society as a champion of Canadian values.

Hooey.

Given the subject at hand, since when does Public Safety pay attention to what an inmate has to say?  And what is this business with, “Neither PS nor the Minister of Public Safety controls when a parliamentary review of C-83 will take place.”  Isn’t this simply a matter of obeying the law?

We emailed Senator Kim Pate, “to get a straight answer” as we put it, to the question of who controls the timing of a parliamentary review.  She came back with, “CSC, the Minister, or a Parliamentary Committee could initiate the review.”

(A momentary pause to the narrative:  We’ve exchanged several notes with Senator Pate over time, and while she always respectfully uses “Mister” in her salutations, her notes and cards are signed simply, “Kim.”  Andrew Osborne on her staff emailed at 6:52pm on a Thursday evening to say he’d passed the email on to the senator.  Senator Pate answered at 9:19pm the same evening.  Some people in Ottawa do work late.)

Moving on.  Who is Talal Dakalbab?  Okay, he’s a senior assistant deputy minister here, but where has he been and where is he going?  He’s been with the Crime Prevention Branch at Public Safety since 2020.  In this position, he’s represented the Canadian Government on many national and international bodies focused on drug use and addictions, criminal and justice policies, and was part of a committee watching over the execution of recommendations for a mass casualty event.  He spent two years before that in the executive of the Canada Border Services Agency, and from 2011, Mr. Dakalbab held management offices with the Parole Board of Canada, including a time as its Chief Operating Officer. 

He began his federal public service career as a parole officer at Correctional Service of Canada and worked his way up through various management positions at CSC in operations and case management.  To come full circle, as of March 23 this year, Talal Dakalbab is now the new Commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada, succeeding the retiring Anne Kelly. 

What is the initialism so widely used today?  OMG.  This is the man who wrote that letter?  Does he believe what he wrote?  Likely not, but he’s bound to work and manage by it.

The Public Safety Minister needed to hear from us again.

April 13, 2026

The Honourable Gary Anandasangaree,
Minister of Public Safety,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Re:      Bill C-83, another national shame.

Minister Anandasangaree:

I have an undated letter from Talal Dakalbab, your Senior Assistant Deputy Minister when he wrote, that was attached to a March 19, 2026, email from your ministry.  It’s in response to my December 23, 2025, letter to you concerning Bill C-83’s mandated review of our prison SIU units.

Mr. Dakalbab was not entirely truthful in his letter.  I question his claim that Public Safety Canada (PS) “remains fully committed to ensuring that federal correctional institutions are safe and humane environments that support effective rehabilitation and reintegration.”  For a start, the SIU Implementation Advisory Panel (IAP) to which Mr. Dakalbab references released its final report in late 2024.  It indicates that the system has largely failed to meet its legislative goals. 

Mr. Dakalbab is either unaware of the panel’s conclusions or is unconcerned.  What’s more, he failed to notice the Office of the Correctional Investigator’s Annual Reports for 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 which “characterized the Structured Intervention Unit (SIU) regime as a failure that has largely replicated the conditions of solitary confinement it was meant to abolish.”  Was Talal Dekalbab setting personal policy as he assumed his new position as the Commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada?

Quoting further from Mr. Dakalbab’s letter, “Neither PS not the Minister of Public Safety controls when a parliamentary review of C-83 will take place.”  This review is not optional.  You’re over two years late in meeting the Bill’s requirement, a Bill your ministry sponsored.  Correctional Service of Canada could initiate the review. Minister, you could order the review.  Or a Parliamentary Committee could step in.

Do you believe this flagrant violation would escape an OPCAT condemnation?  Oh yes, I forgot, Canada won’t ratify OPCAT. 

Charles H. Klassen

cc:       Commissioner Talal Dakalbab, Correctional Service of Canada. 

More “Letters” to come.

….. HARBOURING “SECRET ONTARIO.”

Provincial jails in Ontario fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Solicitor General but are run by ghostly covert forces, shadowy bodies with no face or form, no office or officers, no accountability, no liability, a protected potent blight infesting the weak and vulnerable.  Its corruptive cankers are wherever there is the powerless…jails, youth group homes and foster care homes, places where the elderly are stored, anywhere the defenceless are gathered.

How else do we explain the difference between policy and practice?  How do we square what the people we’ve entrusted with power tell us against the truths hiding beneath the rocks under their feet?  “Secret Ontario.” **

Avoiding scrutiny is paramount.  Our governing institutions invoke the Victorian maxim often used in this space, “I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses.”  No one can know.  Maplehurst did well at hiding the chaos and lawlessness guards and management inflicted on 192 inmates in December of 2023; that is, until courts began staying inmate charges, reducing inmate criminal liabilities, and issuing damning condemnations against the jail.  Then, as whatever it is we like to call it, hit the fan and we saw videos and heard testimonies.

So, what has happened?  We continue to hear of stayed or reduced charges for Maplehurst inmates impacted by the events of December 22-23, 2023.  A class action lawsuit is underway.    What of the perpetrators?  What came from the two investigations?  Have you heard anything?  Has anybody heard anything?  Imagine the anger at Queen’s Park for Maplehurst management and staff allowing itself to “frighten the horses.”

In a freedom of information (FOI) request, we asked for the name of the current Maplehurst superintendent. The answer confirmed that today’s Millhaven superintendent is not the same person as was in that office in December of 2023.  We didn’t ask where that superintendent was now because, as it turns out, that information would have been none of our business.

Three further freedom of information (FOI) requests were submitted in December of 2025.  One asked for the number of Correctional Officers charged with criminal or policy offences arising from that pre-Christmas incident in Maplehurst in 2023.  Another asked for the number of criminal and policy offences laid against guards.  The third wanted to know how many guards had been dismissed because of that disorder at the jail.

All were answered with the same response.  “Please be advised that access to the requested records is denied.  Access to the responsive information is denied in accordance with section(s) S.65 (6) of the Act as follows: S.65 (6), Labour Relations & Employment Related Records.”  In other words, as noted earlier, this is none of the public’s business.  Privacy issues are a real and justifiable concern, but should civil service wrongdoing be privileged?  Criminal charges are in the public domain unless otherwise court-ordered, but Ontario will do what governments always aim to do.  Minimize the damage.  I doubt there’ll be any charges.  We passed on appealing to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario……this time.

Another FOI was submitted on March 6. 
“What do your records show are the number of institutional and criminal charges laid against Correctional Officers at Maplehurst Correctional Complex arising from the incident at the facility on December 22-23, 2023?
This is not a request for the number of Correctional Officers who have been charged of for any information which would identify any Correctional Officer.”

We expect the same previous response, but this time the option to appeal will be exercised.  Let our provincial government double-down on its right (power?) to support “Secret Ontario.”

Ever feel governments take on more power than we intend them to have?

**”SECRET CANADA” IS A PROJECT OF THE GLOBE AND MAIL.  TAKE A LOOK.

Tommy Bassio was 15 days short of his 22^nd birthday on November 25, 1994, when the Sureté du Quebec (SQ) SWAT teams stormed his home in Laval at 6am and arrested him for the mob-styled killing of a Max Jubert who was shot in the back of the head and buried in cement.  Bassio was known to police, but mostly for financial type crimes.

A day earlier Thomas Hartmann was arrested for the same crime and immediately cooperated with authorities.  His statement, written in his own hand, absolved himself of any wrongdoing and placed the blame on Bassio.  According to the SQ, after Bassio was arrested, he confessed to the murder, and his statement was word for word on many points what was written in Hartman’s confession.

There were no eyewitnesses, no DNA, no evidence linking either man to the crime.  The only direct evidence were the two statements, made by the two suspects, and both statements tell the same story.  Bassio was the author of the crime. Usually here’s where Hartmann would become the main prosecuting witness, and Bassio the sole accused.  That didn’t happen.  Both men were placed on trial, charged with first-degree murder.

On April 1, 1996 (April fool’s day) Tommy Bassio was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life-25.

Now the story gets even weirder. The Crown Prosecutors had basically proved their version of events.  Bassio was the person who planned and executed the murder; Hartmann was 100% innocent.  But after Bassio was sentenced and went off to serve his life sentence, the prosecutors continued to go after Hartmann. After nine months of backroom dealings, the Crown struck a deal with this man, a man they proved was innocent, for a 12-year sentence, minus time served, leaving 8 years.

Why would an innocent man accept a 12-year sentence?  More puzzling why would Crown Prosecutors seek to imprison a man they themselves proved to be innocent?  Two men were sent to jail, both convicted under odd circumstances, both convicted for a crime only one could do. Deconstructing this case turned up undisputable facts, and evidence.  The SQ tortured Bassio, refused his right to a lawyer, and lied about the confession. The Crown did in fact knowingly send an innocent man to jail, and that innocent man, as the evidence showed, was Tommy Bassio.

What happened?  Nothing.

Over the years, as he continued to protest his innocence, Tommy Bassio became a prison organizer, reformer and activist.  He complained to all three levels of our federal prison industry (CSC), institutional, regional, and national, about the growing problem of innocent people in Canadian prisons.  The Correctional Service of Canada’s response was that “there are no innocent prisoners in Canadian prisons.”  That’s a problem right there.

According to an essay in the Archambault Report 2.0, the Innocence Project and others like it only take cases where there is newly found evidence that can exonerate an inmate serving time for a crime he/she did not commit.  Bassio’s parole applications were rejected.  His refusal to admit to his crime, his activism, systemic racism, all contributed to Bassio’s continued confinement. 

In the end, on October 14, 2025, and with much persistent community support, Tommy Bassio was released from prison on parole after 31 straight years in jail while being innocent.  In his statement, Bassio wrote that “while much has changed, the truth has not.  Justice did not suddenly correct itself.  Time did not erase what was done, nor did it absolve those responsible.  I did not survive 31 years to live quietly inside another kind of cage.”

Sourced/quoted from helpfreetheinnocent.org and the Archambault Report 2.0

)()(

March 1, 2026

The Honourable Sean Fraser,
Minister of Justice,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Re:      Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act

Dear Minister Fraser:

This Act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law, establishes an independent body with one full-time Chief Commissioner and four to eight commissioner members to review wrongful conviction applications.  It will look at investigations and jury trials that may have been sullied by racism and prejudice, and it will most certainly consider the conduct of law enforcement and prosecutors in securing convictions.

The legislation received Royal Assent on December 17, 2024, and with that the process of appointing commissioners could begin.  As of February, this year, no commissioners or a chair has been appointed, no staff have been hired, and no office space has been secured.

Fourteen months and nothing?  Are you kidding?

Since 2018, the interim process for reviewing miscarriages of justice is handled by the Honourable Morris J. Fish, Special Advisor on Wrongful Convictions.  This is unacceptable, given a few dozen likely cases of the wrongfully convicted are still in our prisons, against what the Special Advisor has been able to accomplish.

Tommy Bassio is a prime example.  He spent 31 straight years in prison for a murder he did not commit.  His innocence was no secret, but it was only through the persistence of supporters that he was finally released on parole last October.  “I did not survive 31 years to live quietly inside another kind of cage,” he said.  I hope he makes lots of noise.

It’s time to execute the law.  It’s time for justice.

Canada needs the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).
It’s been sitting in front of us for the last twenty years, waiting for our ratification.

WHAT DOES OTTAWA FEAR?

“NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD.  INDEED, IT’S THE ONLY THING THAT EVER HAS.”
Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Last May 11, we sent an Access to Information request to Public Safety Canada, asking for a copy of the review of Bill C-83.  C-83 eliminated solitary confinement (in all its forms) and established Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) which would provide improved services for inmates needing separation.  Under this law, a “rigorous review” was to begin by the start of the fifth year after it came into force, and the review was to be submitted within one year of that date.

Referencing the July 29 post “Yes, Minister…..you are breaking the law,” that review which  “must be undertaken” by November 30, 2023, and then be submitted one year later, has not surfaced.  The response to that May 11 information request told us that “after a thorough search, no information related to your request exists within Public Service Canada.”

As we noted on July 29, legal experts questioned whether the reforms in C-83 would satisfy the Charter rights that were violated under the old law.  That’s why the review requirement was added to the Bill.  We copied our brusque letter to Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Public Safety, in that posting, asking him to meet the requirement.

There’s been no answer.  We wrote again, and copies went to Ivan Zinger and Kim Pate.

December 23, 2025

The Honourable Gary Anandasangaree,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Re:      Where is the Bill C-83 review?

Dear Minister Anandasangaree:

Please refer to our July 29, 2025, letter, copy attached.

You are required by law to review Bill C-83, and your ministry has been in violation of Section 40.1 (1) & (2) of the Bill for the last two years.

Please advise when this review will be available.

A frustrated citizen,

Charles H. Klassen

cc:       Dr. Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator
Senator Kim Pate

)()(

Evan Solomon, Liberal MP for Toronto Centre, publishes an “Out & About” mailer for his constituents.  His November issue lauded the merits of the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act.

December 18, 2025

Evan Solomon, MP,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Dear MP Solomon:

“Canada’s new government is introducing sweeping reforms to make bail laws stricter and sentencing laws tougher for repeat and violent offenders, to support the front lines, and to invest in long-term prevention.”

I am a federal prison industry specialist with decades of unmasking what we call our “correctional” system.  I am familiar too with the practices in Ontario’s provincial jails.  The above extract from your recent mailing condenses what is a strictly political move to lull the uninformed into believing this government action will reduce crime and make communities safe.  You may believe this yourself.

Reforms like this will engage the time of many lawyers, courts, and judges for one.  Reverse onus laws are a great target.  Reforms like this will not substantially impact crime rates for another.  Conditions in provincial jails supports civil servant lawlessness while the unofficial motto of our federal system is “we don’t care.”

You want reform?  Begin with understanding that what we do once we have an offender locked up says a lot about what we can expect once that offender is released back into the community.  Speak with people like Senator Kim Pate about our prison industry’s failures.  Speak with inmates who want help but can’t get it.

You want reform?  Begin with supporting neighbourhoods.  That’s where criminality has its roots.  Begin by championing vulnerable kids who slide onto that slippery slope into wrongdoing.  Begin where it all starts.

Stop playing politics with people’s lives.

Charles H. Klassen

)()(

Health Services in Correctional Service of Canada introduced Sublocade as a response to opioid use disorder (OUD), replacing Suboxone.  However, this is another maintenance medication like suboxone and methadone, and without the recommended counseling and psychosocial element, leaves addicted offenders vulnerable to reoffend upon release.  No matter what CSC policy says, and it does trumpet its “treatment teams” to provide that support, those teams are generally elusive bodies to most in-need inmates.

December 29, 2025

Marie Doyle,
Assistant Commissioner, Health Services,
Correctional Service of Canada,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0P9

Re:      Sublocade

Dear Assistant Commissioner Doyle:

Sublocade has recently replaced Suboxone, or is in the process of replacing Suboxone, as a treatment for OUD in CSC facilities across Canada.  Assuming the medication’s side effects are well-tolerated, the switch to a once-monthly injection is convenient, lessens the risk of missed doses, and most importantly, eliminates the misuse that is a property of both Suboxone and Methadone in the prison environment.  It’s a good move.

However, CSC has not read the Sublocade directions, just as it hasn’t with Suboxone and Methadone, even though the prescription for the latter two medications is a part of CSC policy.

All three are maintenance medications and are only a part of a complete treatment plan that includes counseling and psychosocial support.  CSC facilities don’t provide the counseling and psychosocial support that are essential components for a potential OUD recovery.  And that despite policy.  The “treatment teams” that CSC heralds as the curative factor of the process may exist on paper, but inmates don’t see them.  To suggest otherwise is simply the politics that CSC NHQ must support as an agency of the federal government.

In the meantime, wait times for help in the community are long where available, leaving ex-offenders at high risk for recidivism.  Is that a part of a plan?

Charles H. Klassen.

)()(

Correctional Investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger has resigned his post two years early as Peter Zimonjic reported for a CBC posting on November 12:  “Federal prison watchdog leaving post early over ‘frustrations with lack of prison reform.”  Dr. Zinger’s judgements of Correctional Service of Canada are long overdue.  This CBC post is a worthwhile read.  It justifies the work of scores of individuals and dozens of organizations in opposition to federal prison industry practices and validates multiple court awards that cost taxpayers millions.

 December 29, 2025

Dr. Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator,
Ottawa, ON  K1P 6L4

Re:      Congratulations

Dear Dr. Zinger:

“On October 30, the Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) was released.  The OCI’s role is to ensure the fair and humane treatment of persons serving federal sentences.  CSC welcomes this report and its recommendations.
Each year, this report gives us the opportunity to work together to review and enhance the work we do in corrections.  It provides independent, impartial, and timely investigations into complaints and concerns in the federal correctional system.”

This is from Anne Kelly’s November 3^rd “update for offenders and their families.”  You may have read it.  Seasoned observers know Commissioner Kelly is addressing her political masters and the unknowing public.  Most inmates and families are offended by her bids for familiarity.

I’ve read the OCI Annual Reports for years along with the added targeted reviews.  In my opinion, CSC sees these as an intrusion and a nuisance, certainly not as an “opportunity to work together.”  I’ve wondered how you and your predecessor, Howard Sapers, maintained your composures rather than screaming from the rooftops.

As a long-time advocate/agitator, I’m so encouraged that you spoke up in November. I regret you’ve resigned but do understand why you couldn’t stay.  One hopes your successor will model themselves on the work you’ve done.

I wish you the best of good fortune as you move on and hope you will occasionally comment on conditions in our federal prison industry.

Charles H. Klassen

cc        Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Public Safety
Evan Solomon, MP, Toronto Centre
Anne Kelly, Commissioner, CSC
Honourable Kim Pate, Senator

 

“You can’t do nothing when you can do something”
Joyce Milgaard

TO BEGIN WITH A REFERENCE TO OUR ARCHIVES, back in 2010, inmate Ken McKay in Mission, a medium-security institution in British Columbia, asked permission to buy a thesaurus.  He was taking a course….in the day when that was not such a challenge….and wanted a copy in his cell.  The thesaurus cost $9.

Request denied.  There was a thesaurus in the prison library, and he could go through the process of having it delivered to his cell for a specific period.  Not exactly a suitable alternative, and what was the big deal about using his own money to buy a reference book?  Ken went through the entire grievance/complaint exercise.  Denied.  Denied.  Denied.  This over a book!

Ken sued.  He was represented by David Jolivet, another Mission inmate who was a paralegal and a well-practiced litigator against the federal prison industry.  They won.  The judge did not hold back in disparaging the arguments of the two government lawyers.  David pointed out too that Ken was awarded $200 for costs, and Correctional Service of Canada incurred about $3,000 in expenses to process the inmate’s grievances.

We submitted an Access to Information & Privacy request to Ottawa’s Ministry of Justice.  How much did Canada spend to defend CSC in this action?  The response was speedy.  Taxpayers spent $9,028.45.  Details of the costs were redacted for ‘privacy concerns.’

)()(

An interjection here to note CSC’s operating allowances reported in Canada’s Public Accounts as of fiscal year-ending March 31, 2024.  The Ministry of Public Safety allotted $2,838,062,005 for CSC operations during the fiscal year 2023-2024.  CSC spent $2,797,399,845, leaving a $40,662,160 surplus available for the future.

CSC is bombarded with criticisms from inmates, advocates, agencies, the Office of the Correctional Investigator, for ignoring its obligations to provide offenders with sufficient food, proper and timely health care, universal rehab programs with meaningful job training that includes a grounding in the latest technologies.  It’s no surprise that CSC prefers to look for economies in exercising its unofficial we-don’t-care motto.  Do potential bonuses encourage penny-pinching?

CSC’s governance invites lawsuits. 

)()(

Lawsuits.  Given how quickly Justice came back with the costs for defending CSC against Ken McKay’s action, we submitted another ATIP request, this time asking for the total amount paid to settle suits against CSC for the fiscal year prior to the request.  CSC does not answer a complaint in open court, not if the government of Canada can prevent it.  We have records for one in 1998 with a decision in 2000, and there must be others.  Nonetheless, CSC won’t risk having staff testify under oath and the Ministry of Justice does what it must to avoid calamity, settling with complainants and always attaching non-disclosure conditions.

This time the question was apparently an intrusion into privacy issues, and the information would not be made available.  There’s the option in these circumstances to appeal to the Information Commissioner of Canada, but that office is seriously backed up despite the promise of every new federal government to unclog the system.  We decided not to pursue.

On January 24, 2022, we went back to Justice again, sending another request:
“For the latest fiscal year for which you have information, what documents do you have that total the number of dollars the Department has spent/allocated to defend Correctional Service of Canada in legal actions brought by inmates, members of the public or organizations and institutions?”

In May, a response came that did not provide the information requested, but instead the ministry sent 16 double-sided pages of file numbers with brief details, identifying actions against CSC.  The information was “updated as of May 23/22” and some of the 879 files referenced the same case, but overall, these pages represented hundreds of active lawsuits against our prison industry.

)()(

During this same period, of the many class actions against CSC, actions that were not noted in the documents above, one for the negative impacts of administrative segregation was wending its way through the years-long negotiation process to a resolution.  When the settlement was approved and the administrator began distributing the money in 2023, each of the 467 members of the class received $5,469.85.  The court ordered CSC to help members who were current inmates with the claim’s process, and it did.  In addition, there were two paths available to claim additional damages for members who had suffered egregious abuses in segregation.  This is an on-going process.

Those same Public Accounts referenced earlier show that in the 2023-2024 fiscal year, Public Safety allocated $69,438,159 to CSC in cover class action claims, but did not specify which class actions, although the segregation suit settlement is likely the major beneficiary.  The record noted that CSC had used $39,251,236 of those funds during the year, leaving $30,186,923 for future payments.

)()(

Not to be deterred from digging for more information, we sent another request on July 7 of this year to the Ministry of Justice:
“For the latest fiscal year for which data is available, what information do you have for the total amount of dollars paid to settle lawsuits against Correctional Service of Canada?  This request does not ask for any breakout of information pertaining to any single action.”

A July 22 Justice letter confirmed it was “undertaking the necessary search of our records” and it would “inform you of the status of your request within 30 days of its receipt.”  A further Justice letter dated July 29 told us that, “Correctional Service of Canada has a greater interest in the records sought,” and it was turning the request over to CSC as authorized by a subsection of the Access to Information Act.  An undated letter from CSC arrived in September and told us that, “We have conducted a search and located records relevant to your request.  You will note that certain records have been withheld under section 26 of the Act.  A copy of this section is enclosed for your reference.  Please note in the attached release package there are links to publicly available information pertaining to your request.”

Basically, section s.26 of the Access to Information Act says that if information requested will be published within ninety days by the government, then that is where the information must be sourced.  In other words, back to Canada’s Public Accounts noted earlier.  The release package that came with the September CSC letter consisted of 41 blank numbered pages, each printed with “withheld pursuant to section s.26 of the Access to Information Act,” in both official languages.  Nothing!

Those Public Accounts are broken down by Ministry, and CSC is under the wing of the Ministry of Public Safety.  But aside from the funds to meet CSC’s class action burden, and the operational allotments cited earlier, there is no other information in Public Safety’s lengthy list that specifically assigns legal liabilities to CSC.  It’s lumped in with categories like “claims against the crown.”

)()(

Two points.
As difficult as it is to get a clear picture of what is paid out to cover CSC lawsuit settlements, the amount is in the millions over time.  But why aren’t the figures easily available?  And is this the same for other government departments?
Also, just why are there so many legal issues with CSC?  The one obvious answer is CSC is naughty.

Do you have a sore butt?

THIS IS THE TAG CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA HAS EARNED FROM THIS ADVOCATE/AGITATOR AFTER DECADES OF OBSERVATION; WITH THAT COMES CSC’s UNOFFICIAL MOTTO, “WE DON’T CARE.”

CSC is Canada’s federal prison industry and operates under the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness which assigns to it core responsibilities:-
Care and Custody that “provides for the safety, security and humane care of inmates, including day-to-day needs of inmates such as food, clothing, accommodation, mental health services, and physical health care.”
Correctional Interventions where it “conducts assessment activities and program interventions to support federal offenders’ rehabilitation and facilitate their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens.”
Community Supervision that “supervises offenders in the community and provides structure and services to support their safe and successful reintegration into the community.”

And then on its website, CSC’s Mandate “is to contribute to public safety by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure, and humane control.”

The Ministry of Public Safety and CSC cannot but say other than what it does.  Our federal prisons must work within the law, and its policies must comply with the socially accepted standards we expect of the public service in Canada.

The difference between what is law and what is policy and how the Service interprets both in its practices is often pronounced.  Even so, criticisms at any level, institutional, regional or national, are met with pushback references to policy and the law, as if violations are not tolerated and don’t happen.  And CSC doubles down to persistent naysayers, tenacious in its resolve to deny wrongdoing.

)()(

The Senate of Canada’s Standing Committee on Human Rights published two comprehensive reports assessing CSC performance, one numbering over 300 pages, and encapsulated its concern  at the beginning of its interim report of February, 2019, with a judgement often reprinted in this space:
“The security features inherent to the federal correctional facilities are designed to keep people in as much as they are to keep people out.  As a result, the management of the federally-sentenced population is largely conducted away from public scrutiny.  Invisible to the general population, federally-sentenced persons are often forgotten.”

CSC, as it puts it, “also engages Canadian citizens as partners in its correctional mandate.”  These are often volunteers providing various approved services inside institutions as well as in the community.
One volunteer who worked inside prisons for 15 years had this to say about the experience:-
“The volunteer training is illuminating:  all volunteers are warned that they will be manipulated.  CSC tries to pit inmates against volunteers throughout the training.  It so bothers all the volunteers it actually works against CSC – and before volunteers even start they don’t care for CSC staff nor respect them.  Not for a minute have I thought about my safety nor has any other volunteer.”

Today’s edition could be read as an adjunct to “No criminals, no prisons” and “No criminals, no prisons – more” from May 20 and June 5 of this year respectively.  May 20 postulates that while we need a means of separating some people from society, there are over 18,000 civil servants employed by CSC for whom prison inmates are their bread and butter.  The Mandate is but one component to lowering crime rates but is relevant only when executed.  June 5 says the Mandate can work when every inmate is given the opportunity to fully engage to counter each and every impediment that led to their imprisonment.
Good luck with that!

)()(

We’ll cite one typical random example of multiple forces uniting to oppose a CSC decision, knowing all the same that any victory will be countered by retaliatory measures, including punishing inmates who take actions against it.  The fight never ends.

Inmates Frank Dorsey and Ghassan Salah each applied in 2022 under the Habeas Corpus Act for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge CSC denials of their applications for transfers to lower security prisons.  They didn’t apply under the Charter but alleged the denial of their requests engaged four sections of the Charter.  The two inmates consented to have their applications joined for the purpose of determining a common threshold legal issue.

In June of 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed their applications.  The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed their appeals in December of 2023.  In August of 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada granted a leave to appeal the decisions of the lower courts.  Aside from the appellants Frank Dorsey and Ghassan Salah and the respondent Attorney General of Canada, by 2025 several parties intervened to support the inmates.

Those intervenors include the John Howard Society of Canada, Canadian Council for Refugees, Alberta Prison Justice Society, Aboriginal Legal Services, West Coast Prison Justice Society, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Black Legal Action Centre, Pivot Legal Society, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Prison Law Association, and Margaret Lee Cole, a long-serving inmate with the same issues presented in this action.
The Court’s final decision is pending.

So here we have a case few if any are likely to know, championed by a number of groups unknown to most, but it’s only one of many actions involving inmates and other organizations trying to bring CSC to heel.

And yet with all that action, we label CSC as morally corrupt and ethically bankrupt.

Why?

Don’t ask your MP.  They will run for cover.

(Ed note:  A one-person operation can come up against circumstances that demand full attention. This long publishing gap is not the first; probably not the last.)

“ORDINARY CANADIANS ARE EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THE LAW.  BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO EXPECTATION THAT PARLIAMENT SHOULD DO THE SAME – ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS POLITICALLY INCONVENIENT.”

This is the closing judgement to an op-ed published in Toronto’s Globe and Mail on September 3, 2024, a contribution from Anthony Doob, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, Jane Sprott, a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, and Catherine Latimer, executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada.

The essay titled, “We need an inconvenient review of our solitary confinement legislation,” underscored that people charged with a crime must show up for court even if it is inconvenient.  Failure to appear can bring a charge with a new criminal offence.  Apparently, statistics show that 45 per cent of accused found guilty of failure to appear in court in Canada go to prison.   This seems not to be the case for Parliament.

Bill C-83 came into force on November 30, 2019, creating a new form of solitary confinement in federal prisons.  The government lost two major Court of Appeal cases in Ontario and British Columbia which ruled that what our federal prisons (Correctional Service of Canada) called “administrative segregation” violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  By introducing the new law in 2019, the government circumvented appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it would have almost certainly lost.

Legal experts who appeared before Parliament questioned whether the proposed reforms would satisfy the Charter rights that were violated under the old law.  To meet that challenge, a “rigorous review requirement” was added to C-83.

Section 40.1 (1)          At the start of the fifth year after the day on which this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions enacted by this Act must be undertaken by the committee of the Senate, or the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose.
Section 40.1 (2)          The committee referred to in subsection (1) must, within one year after the review is undertaken under that subsection, submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement of setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.

Note that in each subsection, the word MUST appears, not MAY or IF AND WHEN WE FEEL LIKE IT.

Dr. Doob and Dr. Sprott were members of an independent panel reviewing the use of solitary confinement for federal inmates.  Ten “empirically dense reports” were written and publicly released on the practice, and each took pains to underscore that Parliament’s plan for change wasn’t working.  The data in these 10 reports on the new regimen showed that there are problems with Bill C-83; it is not being administered properly, and the intent of the law has not been met.  Many prisoners are treated in violation of court prohibitions, and Indigenous and Black prisoners and prisoners with mental-health issues are at especial risk of inferior treatment in restrictive confinement settings.

The problems the panel observed in its appraisals are taxing it wrote, but that’s why the 2019 legislators anticipated potential downsides and required the later review.  Their purpose was clearly to consider the first few years as a trial period.

So, C-83 came into force on November 30, 2019.  The fifth year began on November 30, 2023, and that comprehensive review was to begin the day later.  The report to Parliament was to be submitted to Parliament within a year after that.

Where is it?  We submitted an Access to Information & Privacy (ATIP) request on May 11 of this year to Public Safety Canada.  We asked for a copy of that report.  A timely response came on June 13.  “Please be advised that, after a thorough search, no information related to your request exists within Public Safety Canada.”

July 29, 2025

The Honourable Gary Anandasangaree,
Minister of Public Safety,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Re:      Bill C-83 violation

Dear Minister Anandasangaree:

Please review Bill C-83 Section 40.1 (1) & (2).

I submitted an Access to Information and Privacy request on May 11 of this year asking for a copy of the report.  A response dated June 13 tells me that, “after a thorough search, no information related to your request exists within Public Safety Canada.”

Sir, you are in violation of an Act of Parliament.  If I or anyone in Canada was in the same position, we would be charged with a criminal offence.

First, Public Safety knows this Bill needs tweaks, along with an enforceable pathway to implementing its provisions, too.  Why is the government shirking its responsibilities?

Second, is impunity a perk of elective office?

Please do your job.  I’d like to read the review of C-83.

A response?  What might show up is an elaborate blunt to any hint of a breach and a defence of the ministry’s compliance with the Act.

What does Parliament fear?
What is under that rock?