SO SAY THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE LIVING IT.  SO SAY ADVOCATE/AGITATORS FOCUSED ON ACCOUNTABILITY.

When the federal government passed Bill C-83 in 2019 eliminating “administrative segregation” (solitary confinement) and replaced it with Structured Intervention Units (SIUs), our federal government didn’t do this to right a wrong.  It did this to comply with court rulings that found the established policy to be “draconian” and “cruel and unusual.”  And the settlement of the class action lawsuit brought on behalf of inmates who spent time in solitary confinement is costing taxpayers about $28 million.

The purpose of the SIUs, in the language used for public consumption, is to house inmates who can’t be managed safely in the mainstream population and who would have previously been locked in solitary confinement cells for up to 24 hours every day.  The thrust of the SIU is to provide a more humane and rehabilitative environment with a minimum of four hours daily outside cells, including two hours of meaningful human interaction.

SIUs are intended and expected to provide interventions, programs and healthcare to fit the specific needs of inmates.  The purpose is not only to return inmates to their regular units quickly, but to determine and address the causes of disruptive conduct and improve their prospects upon release from prison.

The legislation did more.  The SIUs would be subject to independent oversight to ensure compliance with C-83 provisions.  Independent External Decision Makers (IEDMs), lawyers, professors, researchers, all professionals with backgrounds and experience in relevant and related areas from criminal justice to human rights to mental health were appointed by the Minister of Public Safety to operate at arms-length from Correctional Service of Canada.

We can only speculate on why the framers of this bill and the parties that vetted the lengthy paragraphs that are a prerequisite to any legislation did not pause at the word “external” when coupled with “oversight.”  Correctional Service of Canada bridles at even the mention of outsiders looking over its shoulders, and it usually couches objections in patronizing arguments for relief.  Perhaps some savvy civil servant was making a play at reform?

But then too, C-83 did CSC a favour as well, and it’s more than probable that those same framers and the vetting process simply missed the obvious blunder.  C-83 was understandably restricted to the issue of close confinement and did not include references to inmates housed in minimum, medium and maximum level general populations.  How the SIUs might impact CSC’s policies and practices overall did not seem to be considered.

Correctional Service of Canada does not like citizen observers ‘interfering’ with its operations, not even those charged to do just that.  A key example is Correctional Investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger’s frustrations with CSC’s national headquarters as he routinely presses for collaborative solutions to his investigations and recommendations.

CSC policies comply with the law, even as its practices are frequently questioned.  The spirit of the law is not usually a consideration but broad interpretations that support a CSC agenda are encouraged.  For instance, there are institutions where inmates in ‘population’ can be locked in their cells for 20 hours a day, weekdays in particular.  Given the four hours a day out of cells, CSC can argue it’s in compliance even without offering the SIU services.

‘Population’ is the new segregation.

)()(

As a by-the-way, are SIUs working as they should?

Look back at February 9^th’s “Why OPCAT” to review the second half beginning with “Let’s look at one example of OPCAT’s potential.”  The government has not reacted to the 12 reports it ordered from the Structured Intervention Units Implementation Advisory Panel, a body it established to monitor the progress of the new policy, 12 reports that could kindly be described as ‘negative.’  It hasn’t even complied with its own legislation that a comprehensive review of the SIU program “must be undertaken.”

There’s more.  In October last year, the Senate Committee on Human Right condemned the government’s refusal to stop the use of prison solitary confinement despite what it calls the scathing reviews from the federal government’s own advisory panel.  The Senate quoted from the panel’s July 2024 report which came to the same conclusions as it had in all previous observations.  Namely, “SIUs are not addressing the problems they were designed to address……and there were no meaningful or consistent improvements in operations over four years.”

The Senate committee has called for a meaningful federal response to the abusive and discriminatory CSC practices it identified over five years of study in the Senate’s own report, the June 2021 Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons.  The rules of the Senate allow the Senate to request “a complete and detailed response” from the government to reports adopted by the Senate.  According to the rules, the government must respond within 150 days or explain why it can’t.

After some hemming and hawing from the government front benches, silence.  Nothing.

Quoting the Senate committee: “The government’s inadequate response and the relevant ministers’ unwillingness to defend it shows that the government is unconcerned with public safety, indifferent to the routine violations of human rights in Canada’s penitentiaries, and contemptuous of the parliamentarians and witnesses who contributed to this study.”

This isn’t about politics.  It’s about the advice the government is getting from senior civil servants…..

……don’t open that closet door!  We can’t cover for you if you do.

DENY, DENY, DENY…
DEFLECT, ATTACK, ACCUSE…
DISPARAGE, REBUFF, SNUB.

How do our public servants learn to ignore facts with a straight face?
Our federal prison industry’s head office in Ottawa has employees dedicated to do just that.  It should be no surprise then that Ontario’s solicitor general’s office can do the same.  But it does take one aback.  And it should.  How dare our employees treat us as an intrusion, to be sloughed off with any handy expedient.

See March 23, “Corrections or Corruptions….”, and review the content about Ontario.  The Toronto Star published at least four additional Brendan Kennedy contributions in the paper’s series on conditions in Ontario’s provincial jails.  One from March 31, “Watch disturbing video shows jail guards carrying out violent, hours-long retribution at Maplehurst,” links to some of the video from the December 2023 attack on inmates by guards at Maplehurst, videos which were released by court order over ministry objections.

Of course, pictures don’t tell the whole story, so says Janet Laverty, representing the guard’s union.  She hadn’t seen video or images from the incident.  “In any case, videos rarely tell the whole story in context.”  Now that’s sick!  And haven’t we heard that before from other sources about prison film.  Well, then let’s add audio to those surveillance cameras.  Horrors, we can’t do that.  It might tell too much of the story and, besides, it’s not needed, it’s not wanted and there’s no budget.

It seems as well that Chelsea McGee in communications at the solicitor general’s office isn’t concerned about jail conditions or the illegal and unconscionable conduct of staff under her ministry’s jurisdiction.  Where do we find these people?  Are they Trump rejects?

)()(

We passed on comments of our own to Miss McGee and Miss Laverty:-

April 4, 2025

Chelsea McGee, Director of Communications,
c/o The Honourable Michael Kerzner, Solicitor General,
Toronto, ON  M7A 1Y4

Re:       “Ontario’s jails are deadlier than ever….”
Brendan Kennedy, Toronto Star, March 24, 2025

Miss McGee:

“There are government sanctioned human rights violations every day in Canada”.  So reads the deck of “Why OPCAT?” published February 9 of this year in turnoverarocktoday.com, copy enclosed.

When Brendan Kennedy quotes you in the Star on March 24 as saying, “Our message to repeat violent criminals is clear – we have room for you in out jails,” you are endorsing human rights violations in Ontario.  I assume you may have sworn at least one oath before taking the office you hold.  Was there any mention of following the law?

This writer is a federal prison industry specialist, but there are also decades of narrow contacts with Ontario’s Toronto East, Toronto South, and the old Don and Toronto West.  What pride you may have in the operation of the province’s jails can be matched by details and reports far less flattering.

One wonders why Canadians responsible for enforcing the law and administering justice have such a strong opposition to substantive accountability.

Yours truly,

……and on the same date:-

Janet Laverty, Chair,
Corrections Division,
OPSEU,
Toronto, ON  M3B 3P8

Re:       “She thought leaving her nephew in jail would help him…”
Brendan Kennedy, Toronto Star, March 25, 2025

Dear Chair Laverty:

“There are government sanctioned human rights violations every day in Canada.”  So reads the deck of “Why OPCAT?” published February 9 of this year in turnoverarocktoday.com, copy enclosed.

This writer is a federal prison industry specialist but also has decades of narrow contacts with Ontario’s Toronto East, Toronto South, and the old Don and Toronto West.  The Toronto Star series authored by Brendan Kennedy focusing on Ontario jails illustrates a grim and familiar picture. 

The strong defence you make for your members and the difficult work they do doesn’t match the day-to-day reality in the trenches.  The only viable explanation for the difference says that rogue guards who pay little heed to policy and the law, and that for example includes the guards in Lyndsay who murdered Soleiman Faqiri in December of 2016, are not OPSEU members.

Michael Kerzner owes you an explanation.

)()(

“Ontario’s jails are deadlier than ever – and this one is ‘the worst in every respect’” from the Star on March 24 and “She thought leaving her nephew in jail would help him get clean.  His fatal overdose raises hard questions about how drugs get inside” published on March 25 are the other two current entries in the Toronto Star series.

If the ‘rule of law’ and ‘substantive accountability’ apply to inmates, why does it not also govern the behaviour of the keepers?

WHAT’S THE MORE FITTING DESCRIPTIVE FOR OUR FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL PRISON INDUSTRIES?

THE PROVINCES……

The Supreme Court of Canada broke with a 1990 precedent on March 14 this year when it strengthened the rights of provincial jail inmates.  Toronto Star justice reporter David Ebner wrote that inmates who face major institutional charges such as assaults are now guaranteed the presumption of innocence in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Previously, that SCOC 1990 precedent ruled that inmate disciplinary hearings were not criminal in nature and didn’t warrant Charter protection.  Prisoners accused of breaking the rules were judged by a so-called balance of probability, whether it is more likely than not they committed the offence, which is a lower standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some legal scholars were concerned with the Courts move away from precedent and wondered how that might impact other precedents.  Chief Justice Richard Wagner said that departing from precedent “should not be taken lightly,” but he declared the 1990 ruling is no longer binding.  One of the outcomes for inmates found guilty of disciplinary offences can be segregation, and we now take a harsher view of that form of punishment.  Ergo, proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt “applies to person behind the walls of correctional institutions who are charged with disciplinary offences.”

This began in Saskatchewan where the John Howard Society challenge was first heard, but this ruling will echo through all provinces and territories.  “This is a huge victory for prisoner rights,” according to Samara Secter, a lawyer with Toronto’s Addario Law Group LLP, representing intervenor Queen’s Prison Law Clinic.  “A prison is not a Charter-free zone,” she added.

So now, with that written into the law of the land, it is left to see how that “huge victory for prisoner rights” is put into practice.

A LOOK AT ONTARIO (1)

Toronto South Detention Centre opened in 2014 as a maximum-security super jail, a replacement for 3 decommissioned Toronto-area provincial jails.  From the beginning, it’s been regularly condemned by judges for its harsh conditions including findings that the conditions are “inhumane” and the result of “deliberate state misconduct.”

Judges frequently reduce the sentences offenders receive as a counter to jail management and staff workers routine use of segregation, restrictive confinement, lockdowns and “time in cell” punishments that raise human rights concerns.  There are systemic issues to maintaining family and community contacts, and intentional obstructions to meetings with lawyers and court-ordered assessments.  Public health concerns arise related to infrequent changes of bedding and clothing, outbreaks of scabies, triple-bunked cells, and improperly cooked food.  And all, as can be expected, leading to increased violence among frustrated inmates.

The Ontario government appears unconcerned, unaware and oblivious to the chaos.  Even uncaring.  One can question whether the conditions are allowed to prevail because no one, including jail superintendents, are held accountable.

So much for prisoners’ rights.

A LOOK AT ONTARIO (2)

He’s a doozy……a humdinger Ontario wants to cover up.

“Correctional officers at an Ontario jail are being accused of carrying out a brutal act of collective punishment against dozens of inmates in an incident that is now impacting court cases across the province.”

This is Toronto Star investigative reporter Brendan Kennedy’s opening to his exposé in the August 12, 2024, issue of the paper.  It’s been titled, ‘Torturing us as payback’:  Inside the disturbing allegations of how Ontario jail guards exacted their revenge against inmates.

Better to read his detailed report, link below.

https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/torturing-us-as-payback-inside-the-disturbing-allegations-of-how-ontario-jail-guards-exacted-their/article_0286cc24-5671-11ef-b32d-9394cf9702a4.html

(Ed. note: If the link fails, key into your browser, “Toronto Star – torturing us as payback”)

As a follow-up published on February 26 this year and updated on March 7, is, Judge slams jail guards’ ‘disgusting and gross’ treatment of prisoners at Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton.
What’s called the deck (or sub-headline) goes on, Some jail officials testifying on behalf of the Crown seemed to have “suffered amnesia” about the incident, judge added.

Again, the link offers the relevant specifics.

https://www.thestar.com/news/judge-slams-jail-guards-disgusting-and-gross-treatment-of-prisoners-at-maplehurst-correctional-complex-in/article_9f6fe53e-f3ba-11ef-9c29-f31cf044a67c.html

(Ed. note:  If the link fails, key into your browser, “Toronto Star – judge slam jail guards”)

The difference between this and the daily routine in our provincial jails is the scale of the December, 2023, operation.  We can be assured that the ministry investigations by the Solicitor General and Attorney General will focus on how this could get so out of hand that it came to the public’s attention.  The chances that any Maplehurst management or staff will be held accountable in a substantive way is remote.

How many times, in how many ways, can the call go out?  WE NEED OPCAT!

SOLEIMAN AND KENNETH WERE BOTH MURDERED.
Ken’s killers were teenaged girls.  They were charged.
Soli’s killers were uniformed jail guards.  They’re free!
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?

It’s been just over a year since the last entry here questioned Ontario’s justification for the murder of Soleiman Faqiri by its own employees.  Ontario’s solicitor general needed a reminder that this is not going away.

March 9, 2025

The Honourable Michael Kerzner, Solicitor General,
Office of the Solicitor General,
Toronto, ON  M7A 1Y6

Re:      Soleiman Faqiri

Minister Kerzner:

Kenneth Lee, a 59-year-old temporarily homeless man on Toronto’s streets, was swarmed and killed in December of 2022 by 8 girls, ages 13 to 16.  All were arrested and charged.  The Court has rendered judgements to some of the accused; some are pending.  There’s no question all the teenagers were considered culpable and there was no hesitation in bringing the charges.

Soleiman Faqiri, a 30-year-old schizophrenic in distress, was swarmed and killed by a group of jail guards at Lindsay’s Central East Correctional Centre in December of 2016.  Referencing my January 29, 2024, letter to you, the most important question in determining what lead to Soleiman’s death was and still is why were guards in his cell?  It should offend you as the province’s solicitor general, as it does me, that no one seems to want to ask the question.

An inquest late in 2023 ruled Soleiman’s death a homicide and made 57 recommendations which the Faqiri family insists have been basically ignored.  The two most important to Yusuf Faqiri, Soleiman’s eldest brother and leader of the Justice for Soli movement, in one instance gave Ontario 60 days to acknowledge that jails are not appropriate for persons with mental health challenges.  The other was the adoption of an independent (at arm’s length) inspectorate with investigative powers to hold the system accountable.  Not a whisper from Ontario on either.

So, Ontario is brushing off the recommendations of this inquest as it has with previous inquests.  Still, what’s most important is why the killers of Soleiman Faqiri have not been charged?  That’s the first question looking for an honest answer.  That answer won’t be forthcoming.  Soleiman’s death under these circumstances wasn’t the first.  It isn’t the last.  More will come.

A few years ago, an Ontario judge cautioned a plaintiff bringing an action against our federal prison industry.  “Be careful,” he said.  “They protect their own.”

Ontario, too?

The 8^th annual vigil for Soleiman on December 15^th, the anniversary of his death, included a range of speakers, supporters such as Senator Kim Pate, MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam, MPP Sara James, and Imam Yasin Dwyer, along with several community activists.

A private member’s bill intending to stop the criminalization of mental health is co-sponsored by Kristyn Wong-Tam.  The Justice for Soli Act (Bill 196) died on the order paper after its first reading when the Ontario legislature was prorogued for an election.  It will be re-tabled when the House is recalled.  Private members bills usually fail, but win or lose, this will help keep Soleiman’s name current.

The government’s settlement with the family was intended to buy silence and there may be provisions which inhibit speech and action.  ‘Please go away’ is the message from Queen’s Park.  Nonetheless, the Faqiri family and its followers will continue to insist that Ontario apologize for its negligence and the guards who killed Soleiman must be held criminally accountable.

How did this happen?

THERE ARE GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS EVERY DAY IN CANADA, and federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions are all culpable.  This despite the persistent claims that Canada champions human rights everywhere.  Yes, everywhere but here?

That’s why OPCAT!

The last entry in this space dedicated to this apparently alarming United Nations protocol is dated January 7 of 2024.  Like two earlier postings and several other references, our government is urged to ratify OPCAT to back up our human rights guarantees.  More than ninety countries are on board.  Several have stepped forward to ask Canada to do the same.  We haven’t.  As an aside, the United States has also declined to take part, but that is no surprise.

The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) was adopted by the United Nations on August 14, 2006.  That’s correct.  2006!  It complimented the Convention Against Torture (CAT), referred to as the “Mandela Rules,” adopted by the UN in December of 1984 and which came into force in June of 1987 after 20 countries, including Canada, ratified it.

So, what does OPCAT do?
It sets up a routine of regular, independent visits to places of detention (i.e. immigration, military, and juvenile detention centers, prisons, police stations, psychiatric hospitals, and any place where people might be deprived of their liberty under public authority).
National and international bodies visit with a goal to preventing abuse and ill-treatment of detainees.
OPCAT further establishes independent National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) to monitor places of detention and make recommendations to governments.
OPCAT’s intent is to protect people who are deprived of their freedom, help to prevent the most serious human rights’ violations, and holds states accountable in a non-combative way.

Correctional Investigator Ivan Zinger and the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Charlotte-Anne Malischewski wrote four federal government ministers and several civil servants on November 1, 2023, urging them to finally ratify OPCAT.  (See OPCAT! OPCAT! OPCAT! from December 3, 2023, and Reasoning for OPCAT dated January 7, 2024).  They may have received responses but there’s been no action.

Deputy Minister Shawn Tupper’s December 14, 2023, letter to this writer, reviewed in the January 7 posting, proves the necessity for OPCAT.  It lists the laws and policies Canada already has in place to guard human rights.  In practice they do not prevent violations.  Mr. Tupper lapses into political double-speak when he writes, “consideration of Canada’s potential accession to the OPCAT is ongoing.  Consultations have previously been undertaken, and efforts continue to be explored within the Government of Canada to work through the range of policy and implementation considerations.”  Since 2006, Shawn?

Let’s look at one example of OPCAT’s potential.

In 2019, the government passed an amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act which abolished the use of “administrative segregation” (solitary confinement) in federal prisons and replaced it with “structured intervention units” (SIUs), meant to reduce prisoner isolation and increase out-of-cell time with specified meaningful human contact.  This change was prompted by government losses in both the Ontario and B.C. Courts of Appeal, which ruled that the status quo violated the Charter.

The government wanted to avoid a further certain loss in the Supreme Court of Canada, and given the possibility that the proposed legislation would be ruled inadequate, a ‘rigorous’ review requirement was added to the bill.  The government “must” undertake a comprehensive review of the legislation starting in 2023.  The law doesn’t say “may” but “must.”  It’s now 2025 and the “must” that Parliament legislated to begin in 2023 hasn’t started yet.

You must follow the law.  If you are charged with a crime, you must show up in court…even if it is inconvenient.  Not appearing may lead to a further criminal charge, and 45 per cent of Canadians who are found guilty of failing to appear in court go to prison.  It seems things are different when the law requires Parliament to inconvenience itself, especially when it is politically inconvenient.

Further, this legislation set up a 10-member Structured Intervention Units Implementation Advisory Panel with a mandate expiring on December 31, 2024.  The group was chaired by former Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers and included Professors Anthony Doob and Jane Sprott, and John Howard Society of Canada executive director Catherine Latimer, all seasoned observers of our carceral system.

The panel’s title explains its purpose.  12 reports were issued during its term, and all underscored the extent to which the purpose of the law is not being achieved.  The use of solitary confinement persists throughout the prison system, and vulnerable groups are especially at risk of experiencing its negative effects.  Many prisoners are treated in ways the courts have prohibited because they violate the UN Nelson Mandela Rules.

You would think our government would be eager to obey the law, carry out the required review and initiate improvements.  You’d be wrong.

OPCAT could not order the Canadian government to follow its own laws, or to make changes in how prisoners are treated, but OPCAT would put Canada on notice internationally.

This is but one instance where OPCAT will work to keep Canada honest.

There are government sanctioned human rights violations every day in Canada.

AFTER ALMOST FIVE YEARS, CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA FINALLY PROMULGATED ITS REVISED COMMISSIONER’S DIRECTIVE 022, regulating communications between CSC corporate, its staff, and the offenders under its control with the media.  The updated version came into effect on September 16, 2024.

In the view of the Correctional Investigator’s office, the focus for change was the impediments the previous directive put in the way of inmate media contacts.
Remember this from previous postings:-
“In unreasonably denying or delaying an inmate’s access to the media, the Service may be in violation of recognized democratic principles and constitutionally guaranteed rights.  An incarcerated person does not forfeit the right to freedom of expression, and the wider public has a right to be informed of what goes on behind prison walls.”
(ed: emphasis ours)

This excerpt from Correctional Investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger in his office’s 2019-2020 Annual Report underscores the community’s right to an inmate’s perspective of life inside Canada’s federal prisons, as much as Correctional Service of Canada would like that to be otherwise. It has and does find ways to punish inmates who speak out.

Note again.  It (CSC) has and does find ways to punish inmates who speak out.

That entry in Dr. Zinger’s Annual Report spurred a project by the Service to rewrite the media relations instructions.  It took Commissioner Anne Kelly and Correctional Service of Canada nearly five years to complete.  Five years!  Consider this was not a process to move a mountain, but rather an exercise to smooth out the rough spots on a hill.

Why the delay?  Recently, at a social event, this writer met a retired lawyer who spent her career with various ministries in the federal government where she wrote (and rewrote) legislation.  It was work she enjoyed.  No doubt she was given goals with intended outcomes, and her reward came from meeting the requested impact.  The rewrite to CD 022 went through numerous inspections and consultations, and certainly some tweaks, thanks to the services of many lawyers.

Does it meet Dr. Zinger’s objective?  That’s still to be tested.

January 27, 2025

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

Re:      Commissioner’s Directive CD 022 Media Relations

Dear Dr. Zinger:

I took a break last year from chasing CSC for the new directive and now see that it came into effect on September 16 last fall.

It was about time, after nearly five years, but I’m always wary of CSC policy revisions, particularly when they aren’t Service initiated.  It seems that when it is persuaded or ordered to make updates, CSC’s preference is to start at point ‘A’, take a wide meandering lengthy path and end up back at point ‘A’, but with an elaborate rewording from where it began.

I am not a lawyer and am unable to decipher the policy language niceties of the new directive.  While I’m hopeful there have been substantive revisions that meet with your approval, I suppose this rewriting will need to be tested in practice.

For now, all of us with an interest are grateful for your bringing this to the fore.

Yours truly

Remember this?
“The security features inherent to 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.”
Senate of Canada Standing Committee on Human Rights,
Interim Report – Study on the Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons
February 2019

Correctional Service of Canada touts its commitment to accountability and transparency.  Inmate perspectives are integral to that process.

Why the reluctance?  Why keep people out?  Why the fear of OPCAT?

More on OPCAT next time…..

……WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT?
Well yes, if it’s what their constituents want to hear.  Facts, studies and science rate low in the pursuit of votes.

One of our federal political parties always drags out “crime” during election campaigns.  Statistical variances don’t matter; “crime” is forever an issue only this party can address.  Not only that, but in practice this political party, when given an opportunity to govern, also intentionally strangles the few resources for rehabilitation that our underfunded federal prison industry has.  This guarantees the stability in the numbers of offenders in custody which secures the gratitude of Correctional Service of Canada and its 20,000 employees and assures the public that the government is doing something about “crime.”

Weird.

Two Members of our Parliament recently commented on one facet of their perspective in dealing with “crime.”
They needed a reality check.

First, there was……

October 28, 2024

The Honourable Pierre Poilievre,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Re:      Common sense, my butt!

Mr. Poilievre:

Two points only:-

“Axe the Tax” puts you in a dark place, unless you have something to replace it.  Just what is your plan to fight the impact of climate change?  After all, it’s the biggest threat we face.

Also, you want to force drug-addicted prisoners into rehab?  Really?  At about the same time you announced that, I got a report from Saskatchewan Penitentiary in Prince Albert that a sign posted at the entrance to its health care unit read that the wait time to see a psychiatrist was 10 to 15 months!  Not unusual in our prisons.

The institution mounted that sign as so many inmates want help and can’t get it.  And mental health intervention is a part of rehab.  As it is, waiting months to see a psychiatrist gets an offender perhaps as much as a 15-minute telephone appointment plus a drug prescription to mask symptoms.  No counselling.  No remedy.

The same is the case for our federal prison industry’s drug treatment program.  Correctional Service of Canada only maintains an inmate’s OUD with drugs, usually methadone or suboxone.  The necessary counselling to treat core issues is a part of CSC policy but it isn’t available in the general population

Common sense.  You’ll have to do better.

Charles H. Klassen

And, then came…..

January 10, 2025

Raquel Dancho, MP,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Re:      Federal prison needle exchange program

MP Dancho:

I’ve attached a copy of my October 28, 2024, letter to your leader, Pierre Poilievre.

Now, please reference the Monday, December 16, 2024, Globe and Mail where it was reported that you “said in a statement that her party opposes the program.  Inmates should be placed into drug treatment programs rather than being provided with needles.”  This article noted that a study of the prison needle programs save money but are underused.

Prison guards make the life of needle exchange program participants miserable; that’s why relatively few inmates are involved.  No matter the drug, needles or not, addicted inmates would line up in scores for treatment programs, if they were available.

Don’t let Anne Kelly hoodwink you.  Programs are not available.

Are you willing to support the considerable costs for providing what is needed?  Would your Conservative Party back you?

I wonder.

Charles H. Klassen

What should we call people who use people as bait to hook their neighbours?

What Hiatus?
Yes, there’s been a long gap between postings. The work slowed but didn’t stop.
We’re back!