“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?

“…..THIS GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION AND ITS MEMBERS ARE BREAKING THE LAW BY ABUSING THE VERY PRISONERS THEY HAVE A DUTY OF CARE TO PROTECT.”  So said Justice Colette Good in March of this year, referencing the “disgusting and gross display of power” at Maplehurst Correctional Complex in December of 2023, an event that was covered up for months by our Ontario government.  Judge Good went on to summarize; “Something like this should never happen in this country.”

Well, something like this happens every day in this province, albeit small scale, unnoticed and unreported.  An anonymous spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of the Solicitor General wouldn’t comment on the lawlessness at Maplehurst but did say that “the safety of both staff and inmates inside Ontario’s correctional institutions is of serious importance and misconduct in any form is not tolerated.”  That unnamed spokesperson is a public servant caught in a lie.

As for the videos that still exist of those two days at Maplehurst, OPSEU Correctional Division chair Janet Laverty hadn’t seen them but commented that, “In any case, videos rarely tell the whole story in context.”  Ms. Laverty knows this is a standard federal/provincial response to the relevance of prison video evidence.  It should amaze that some of us believe this pat answer stands up to scrutiny.

Before turnoverarocktoday.com, in the days of Klassen Mailing List when hard copy postings were delivered by mail, an item of timeless significance jumped out when we spotted it in the files.  This 2009 piece was sent to all Ontario jail superintendents of the day; it’s reproduced here. 

)()(

July, 2009                        TO ONTARIO’S PROVINCIAL JAIL SUPERINTENDENTS

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN BEATEN BY GUARDS IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY PUT IN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY WILL BE BEATEN BY OTHER INMATES IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN VERBALLY OR PHYSICALLY HARASSED WITH REMARKS BY STAFF, SUCH AS, “FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING INMATES”, “I HATE INMATES”, “WHO DO I OWE A BEATING TO TODAY”, OR BACKHANDED/SLAPPED BY STAFF, IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO IMPLIED OR OVERT RACIAL SLURS, OR SINGLED OUT FOR HARSH TREATMENT BECAUSE OF RACE, IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN DENIED A SHOWER AND A HOT MEAL ON COURT DAYS IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF CLOTHING AND/OR FOOD AND/OR BEDDING AND/OR HYGIENE PRODUCTS, OR PLACED IN SEGREGATION FOR NO SPECIFIED OR VERIFIABLE REASON, IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN THE THIRD OR FOURTH OCCUPANT IN A CELL IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE HAD THEIR CANTEEN ORDERS DESTROYED BY STAFF IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN DENIED THE USE OF A TELEPHONE, PREVENTED FROM CONTACTING THEIR LAWYERS, OR THE ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN, IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF PAPER AND/OR PENCILS TO PREVENT THE FILING OF INSTITUTIONAL FORMS SUCH AS AN “INMATE STATEMENT FORM” IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE BEEN DENIED PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS OR MEDICAL ATTENTION OR TOLD THAT MEDICATION IS A PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INFRACTIONS OF POLICY, PROCEDURE AND THE LAW HAVE JAIL CHAPLAINS WITNESSED IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK, BUT CAN’T DO THEIR WORK UNLESS THEY KEEP THEIR EYES, THEIR EARS, AND THEIR MOUTHS SHUT?

HAVE JEWS, CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS EACH HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORSHIP IN COMMUNITY IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY INMATES HAVE RECEIVED “PACKAGES” THROUGH THE COLLABORATION OF JAIL STAFF IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY STAFF MEMBERS ARE NOT WEARING A CORRECTIONAL SERVICE ISSUED IDENTIFICATION TAG WHILE ON DUTY, OR WEARING A CORRECTIONAL SERVICE ISSUED IDENTIFICATION TAG IMPROPERLY, IN YOUR INSTITUTION THIS WEEK?

HOW MANY LOCKDOWNS HAVE OCCURRED IN YOUR INSITUTION IN THE LAST MONTH BECAUSE OF STAFF SHORTAGES OR EXTENDED STAFF BREAKS, AND HOW MANY VISIT DAYS HAVE BEEN CANCELLED BECAUSE OF STAFF SHORTAGES, PARTICULARLY ON WEEKENDS?

WHY AREN’T RECORDS KEPT OF LOCKDOWNS AND CANCELLED VISITS IN YOUR INSTITUTIONS?

)()(

How much has changed in fifteen years?

To close with an illuminating note from the past, about ten years ago this writer was visiting an inmate at the Toronto South Detention Centre.  All visits at Toronto South are via video.  Once approved and with an appointment, visitors are directed to a specific numbered monitor in a large room with rows of screens.  At the designated time, the inmate appears from a station on or close to his range.  On this day, a question came up in the conversation, perhaps about canteen money, and the inmate left to get an answer from a guard in the ’bubble.’  He returned a minute later with a look of silent rage and dark angry eyes.  He had asked the question.  The guard’s response was a loud, “get away from the window you piece of f……g shit.” 

Your public service at work.

What would Doug Ford say of this?  Doug Ford would say, ‘NO COMMENT.’

DOUG FORD, ONTARIO’S FIRST MINISTER, HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL DOUG DOWNEY, AND HIS SOLICITOR GENERAL MICHAEL KERZNER KNOW PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES AT THE MAPLEHURST CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX BROKE THE LAW.  Their response has been to decline comment.  In the end, they’ll use tax dollars to settle victims’ lawsuits, settlements that include non-disclosure clauses, and then expect the mess to disappear from media scrutiny and public interest.

Have Doug Ford, Doug Downey and Michael Kerzner committed a crime?  They probably haven’t met the standard under Canadian law, but if they were just John Q members of the public and not ministers of the Crown, what repercussions might these men face?

This space has twice brought forward the “disgusting and gross” treatment of prisoners by guards at Maplehurst on December 22 and 23 in 2023.  See “Corrections or corruptions…” from March 23 of this year, followed by “Ontario jails…a familiar refrain” on April 6.  Since then, the Toronto Star has printed three further Brendan Kennedy entries on the rampant savagery at Maplehurst at Christmas in 2023.

Detailed here are only the titles and decks of these three accounts.  They say enough.
June 2 – “A murder. Alleged human trafficking. Drugs.  These are cases that have been compromised by inmate abuse by Maplehurst guards.”  ‘This is the first accounting of the scale of disruption to the justice system caused by the violent crackdown at the Ontario jail.’
June 9 – “Hours of audio and video evidence is missing from Maplehurst guards’ crackdown on inmates.”  ‘The missing footage, which some jail staff allege was purposely destroyed, has fueled calls for a public inquire into the violent incident.’
June 16 – “Ontario government facing lawsuits from inmates over ‘unconscionable conduct’ by Maplehurst jail guards.”  ‘The lawsuits mark a widening fallout from the violent incident, which has already compromised dozens of criminal prosecutions.’

The Star published one statement from solicitor general Michael Kerzner in the June 9 article, one comment only given the numerous times he had refused to say anything.  “When it comes to our expectations of the professional conduct of everyone that keeps Ontario safe, it’s simple.  They’ll maintain the highest standard of professional conduct and when they don’t there’ll be consequences.”  Really?  That’s novel.

As bad as the actions at Maplehurst are, like the murder by guards of Soleiman Faqiri in Lindsay in 2016, these are but the extremes of what are normal daily operations in Ontario’s jails.  That should be the takeaway to rattle us all.

 July 1, 2025

Doug Ford, Premier,
Toronto, ON  M7A 1A1

Re:      Doug Ford, crime boss?

Premier Ford:

Recently, you ranted about the stupidity of a bunch of masked men running down the street to steal your car while two police cruisers kept watch on your home.  Should they be in jail?  Yes, given due process.  Bail?  Maybe.  We’re in Canada. 

Bill Blair was still Toronto’s police chief when he talked crime with host Matt Galloway on CBC Radio’s Metro Morning.  He wanted the system to “help these people turn their lives around” when offenders were locked up.  He knew our carceral networks’ programs had the substance of a soufflé.  Think about it.  Without this, we’d simply be growing a criminal class and building prison industries.

But hold on one moment, Premier Ford!  For all your broadsides condemning what we’re not doing about crime and criminals, you don’t seem to have any concerns about criminals on your payroll.  I’m referring to the Maplehurst jail guards who made a joke of the criminal code, their employer’s policies and best practices, and their oaths of office, on December 22 and 23, 2023. I’m referring also to Lindsay’s jail guards who murdered Soleiman Faqiri on December 15, 2016.

You, your attorney general Doug Downey, and your solicitor general Michael Kerzner couldn’t comment on Maplehurst because of ongoing investigations.  Then you couldn’t talk for the same reason even though the two investigations were complete.  Now you can’t talk because of the pending class action and numerous lawsuits. 

What should disturb you most is the events in Maplehurst and Lindsay represent the extremes of standard daily practices in your Ontario jails.  Mr. Kerzner’s, “They’ll maintain the highest standard of professional conduct and when they don’t there’ll be consequences,” rings hollow.

Charles H. Klassen

cc:       Messrs. Michael Kerzner and Doug Downey.

 

Expected outcome?  Nothing!  Check the record.