JUST HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACT “AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE”?
“Justice.  Meet Injustice.” from March 2^nd included a letter to Justice Minister Sean Fraser questioning the delay of more than a year in executing the provisions of the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law).

In no time at all by Ottawa standards, a March 24 emailed response to that letter came from David Boucher, Manager, Ministerial Correspondence Unit at Justice.  In it, Mr. Boucher wrote that, “The Government of Canada is working to implement the launch of the new, independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission as quickly as possible to make the review process easier and faster for potentially wrongly convicted people.”  It went on to suggest it would be “helpful for you to know” that the existing remedies were still available in the meantime.  Mr. Boucher didn’t share the status of the work to ‘implement the launch’ of the new Act.  It’s doubtful Mr. Boucher knows.

)()(

From the March 16^th post, “Maplehurst – one of many hosts harbouring ‘Secret Ontario.’”  answers to three freedom of information requests (FOI) were withheld.  All involved the outcomes of two investigations into the December 22-23, 2023 ‘incident’ at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex.  Ontario was protecting the information under FIPPA (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act) legislation.    

A February 11^th letter went to Noel Kent at his North Bay office.  He’s the senior manager of the FOI services for Ontario’s solicitor general.

REQUEST NUMBERS GRSG-2025-01263, 1264, 1265

I am in receipt of your January 23, 2026, letters responding to my three requests as numbered above.

The decision was anticipated, and there is no purpose in going to the IPC.**

The intent here was to get the decision, giving me an opportunity to comment as one citizen of Ontario to another.  FIPPA is flawed, like so much legislation, but you must follow the law as it is.  In this case, FIPPA allows the government to avoid embarrassment and shield wrongdoers from exposure or prosecution.

And this the government does.  There are any number of examples to that point.

Most people don’t give a damn.  That’s why the world is a mess.

Have a good day.

** Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

That March 16 post also referenced a March 6th FOI asking ONLY for the number of institutional and criminal charges that were laid after the investigations of events at Maplehurst.  The same result was expected, and in that case, the appeal option would be exercised.  “Let our provincial government double-down on its right (power?) to support Secret Ontario.”

The request was rejected.

March 30, 2026

Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario,
Toronto, ON  M4W 1A8

Dear Information and Privacy Commissioner:

This is an appeal of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Services’ decision to deny access to information in my request number GRSG-2026-00307, in accordance with section 65(6) of the Act.  I’ve enclosed a copy of FOI’s March 18 letter denying my request, a copy of my GRSG-2026-00307 request, plus a $25 cheque made out to the Minister of Finance.

I’m noting for your information as background that FOI also declined three earlier and related requests, all dated December 8, 2025.  Namely, they are:
GRSG-2025-01263, “what records to you have that show the number of criminal/policy offences laid against Correctional Officers at Maplehurst Correctional Complex arising from the incident at the facility on or about December 22-23, 2023.
GRSG-2025-01264, “what records to you have that show the number of Correctional Officers at Maplehurst Correctional Complex who have been charged with criminal or policy offences arising from the incident at Maplehurst on or about December 22-23, 2023.
GRSG-2025-01265, “What records do you have that show the number of Correctional Officers who have been dismissed as a result of the December 22-23, 2023, incident at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

I’ve also enclosed a copy of my February 11, 2026, letter to Senior Manager Noel Kent at the FOI office in North Bay commenting on the decision to decline these three requests. 

To be clear, this appeal is for the decision on GRSG-2026-00307 only.

I did not appeal FOI’s earlier decision.

I do understand and accept that regulated privacy standards are necessary in today’s environment.  I don’t accept that those regulations are used to protect wrongdoing in the civil service. 

Solicitor General Michael Kerzner is making a habit of protecting public servants who have or may have committed illegal acts.  Premier Doug Ford is going to extraordinary lengths to shield possible government malfeasance.  I expect your response to my appeal will confirm this unfortunate trend to undermine democracy.

Yours truly.

The appeal was confirmed on April 24, and an analyst was assigned on June 2.  A decision will take time.

)()(

Remember earlier this year when four provincial premiers asked Ottawa for provincial collaboration in the process of selecting provincial court judges, currently a federal government preserve?

March 27, 2026

The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario
The Honourable François Legault, Premier of Québec
The Honourable Scott Moe, Premier of Saskatchewan
The Honourable Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta

Dear Honourable Premiers:

So, you want to have a hand in the selection of Provincial Court judges.

What we have works pretty well.  Slow, perhaps, but a respectable process. 

You know the saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

What you suggest challenges the public perception of judicial impartiality.  Why would you want to do that?  You have an agenda, maybe?

Relieve us of our suspicions.  Drop it.

cc The Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice, Ottawa

An answer came from just one province.  Stephani Fuchs, Ministerial Assistant to Saskatchewan Minister of Justice Tim McLeod, offered a detailed case in an April 8 letter.  She argued that the request was “not about political influence over judicial decisions, partisan appointments or reshaping Canada’s judiciary to resemble foreign systems.”  It’s to make the process of selecting judges more effective, transparent and part of a collaborative process between the federal and provincial governments.  The current process “does not give provincial governments an equal voice in appointing justices.”       

Near the end of her letter, Ms. Fuchs writes, “Collaboration between the federal government and the provinces to improve the current appointment process will benefit all Canadians by ensuring the judiciary reflects the community it serves.”   Sorry, but that is political and partisan.  Courts service the law, benefiting communities by objectively applying the law with well-reasoned judgements, offering order, fairness, and resolution.

)()(

LATE NEWS:
On Thursday, June 11, CSC Commissioner Talal Dakalbab ‘officially’ rejected the proposed budget cut that would eliminate federal librarian positions.  This came to us in an announcement from Executive Director Tom Best, Book Clubs for Inmates.
BCFI thanked “a remarkable community of writers who set aside their own work to write compelling and heartfelt articles about this misguided decision.  Their voices helped galvanize public attention, sparked important conversations, and inspired so many Canadians to take interest and action.”
Agreed.  This is good news.

An inmate called to caution, “Remember, this is not for us.  It’s for you.”

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.