Our letters usually aren’t written with expectations of a response. They’re intended to increase the sale of antacids. Sometimes a comment comes back, and occasionally a second letter will go out as an addendum to a first to provoke a reaction. More of that is warranted but time is a valuable and limited resource. Then there is the rare occasion when an answer will appear months later, unexpected but presenting an opening for a comeback. This is one example, dusted off from last year’s files but worth a chuckle.

Late last July, the Toronto Star published “PTSD rates high among male corrections officers” under Gloria Galloways’ byline. In it, 36% of male federal prison guards reported being affected by post-traumatic stress disorder caused by “the dangerous and emotionally corrosive atmosphere within Canada’s prisons.”

The article voiced the complaints of guards and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers which represents them, claiming that not enough is being done to offer treatment and resources to the men who are suffering. Many have to pay for their own therapy, and disability benefits are difficult to access. There have been some improvements to available assistance, particularly in Ontario and Manitoba, but the union asks the federal government to work with all provinces for changes.

We wrote to Ralph Goodale, the Liberal cabinet member responsible for Correctional Service of Canada on August 2…….

One factor always overlooked which exacerbates the challenges for guards is the incidents of PTSD among federal prison inmates. The environmental conditions stressing CSC staff members also affect the men and women on the other side of the bars in the same way and to the same degree. Some inmates may already display symptoms of the disorder when they first enter the prison system, a result of their life’s experience.

The difficulty for inmates is that assets which guards access in the community, or to which they can petition for redress, are not available in prison health-care units, or are withheld arbitrarily, or have a limited efficacy. The result is an overall highly charge negative atmosphere. Given those circumstances, it is no wonder a large percentage of guards in our federal prisons are asking for help.

Solutions must include remedies for everyone behind the walls.

That was it. No response expected. Frankly, no response welcomed.

Then, in early December, a letter dated December 2 arrived over the minister’s signature, and unapologetically began with……

Thank you for your correspondence of August 2, 2016………

It went on for over a page…….

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has a legislative mandate to provide every inmate with essential health care and reasonable access to non-essential mental health care, etc………

Right.

CSC provides offenders with a variety of mental health interventions, including assessments and treatment, etc……..

Right.

In the fiscal year 2015-2016, CSC spent approximately $77 million on mental health services, etc…..

Right.

Our government is focused on ensuring that federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment, etc…….

Right. No mention of the guards’ complaints.

This deserved another kick at the can

December 22, 2016

The Honourable Ralph Goodale,
Minister of Public Safety,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Re: PTSD & prison guards II

Dear Minister:

Thank you for your December 2 response to mine of August 2. Your staff may have prepared that letter for your signature, but I must believe you endorse its contents.

I don’t intend we belabour the subject of the stressors to which prison guards are subject in our federal institutions, but your letter exposes a vulnerable CSC flank. Given all the resources and programming available to address the mental health of inmates, and the $77 million spent in one fiscal year (2015-2016) to support these services, one question goes begging.

Why then are so many correctional officers looking for help with PTSD?

What is done to determine the efficacy of these inmate programs? How well are the resources delivered, what ongoing oversight monitors inmate engagement, and how does scheduling impact outcomes? $77 million is a lot of money; how well are stakeholders embedded in the allocation process? And finally, how well is CSC collaborating with community resources?

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

One thing neither CSC management nor the federal ministry responsible for it seems inclined to do is analyze the who’s, why’s, what’s and where’s that result in over a third of prison guards claiming a disabling condition. That closet door opens a Pandora’s box.

“Do you job….or pay!” was published on June 19 of last year. An Ontario superior court justice awarded two provincial jail inmates at total of $85,000 in compensation for the excessive use of lockdowns in a Milton, Ontario jail.

The two had some legal advice, but as was noted in this post, “Both men represented themselves in court.”

Jamil Ogiamien’s $60,000 portion of the award was to be paid jointly by the province and federal government, since Ottawa was responsible for his detention. He was being held pending a deportation hearing, a removal to Nigeria, a country he left as a child and with which he had no connection.

Subsequently, in late October, Mr. Ogiamien was ordered out of the country at the end of the first week of November. However, in the months after that June award decision, Ontario and Ottawa appealed the ruling, but the hearing was not scheduled until February. Under those circumstances, he’d be gone from Canada and end up with nothing. A last-minute reprieve was granted the day before the deportation order took effect, although border enforcement officials would not give a reason for the temporary suspension.

As an aside, it should be noted that Mr. Ogiamien was charged with impaired driving and possession of cannabis in April of 2013, was acquitted a year later, but was still held under an immigration detention order.

Going back to the original action and award, where two inmates representing themselves in court, taking on the province and feds over jail conditions, and then winning a judgement over the arguments of government lawyers, we were curious about how much taxpayers were billed. Accessing information only from the province of Ontario, we asked, “What legal costs did the Ministry of the Attorney General incur defending this action?”

The answer: Please be advised that this matter was assigned to salaried staff. As a result, the only legal costs incurred for this file have been disbursements. To date (December 20, 2016), the total amount of disbursements incurred in relation to this matter is $9,571.47. This includes disbursements in connection with Ontario’s ongoing appeal of the superior court decision.

It’s not difficult to estimate the salaries and benefits for a few government lawyers over the period of time this case is working its way through the system. Certainly, the figure would multiply the amount of disbursements a number of times.

Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just not violate the human rights standards the government itself sets in the first place?

‘Poor Howard Sapers’, is how we began the November 27 posting, “It’s a wonderful life…..when you can pass the buck.”

Howard Sapers became the country’s Correctional Investigator in 2004, acting as an ombudsman for Canada’s federal prisoners. He studied criminology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, worked for the Parole Board of Canada and the John Howard Society, and was a Liberal MLA in Alberta for two terms before Paul Martin appointed him to the office he’s held for 12 years.

Every year he issued an annual report to the ministry overseeing Correctional Service of Canada with observations and details of investigations he and his staff conducted during the period. Recommendations to improve the operation and outcomes of our federal prisons were included. Those reports were eventually tabled in Parliament, along with a response from CSC.

On January 2 of next year, and three days after leaving his CI job, Howard Sapers takes on the roll of an independent adviser to Ontario’s government, leading an external review of segregation policies in the province’s jails. Media coverage of segregation/solitary confinement policies in particular has been long-running, extensive and universally critical.

Mr. Sapers’ mandate is broad, and will include several aspects of the penal system, from regulation to policy to recruitment to training and infrastructure. One newspaper account describes the present system as “troubled”, and for instance, is facing three class action suits recently initiated just around the thorny lockdown issue, a practice so common in Ontario as to render some jails almost entirely segregation facilities on a frequent basis.

This appointment is welcome news, at least in this embryonic stage, and we sent a letter to Mr. Sapers:

November 21, 2016

Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator of Canada,
Office of the Correctional Investigator,
Box 3421, Station ‘D’,
Ottawa, ON K1P 6L4

Dear Mr. Sapers:

I’ve admired your work as Canada’s CI for years, but sir, you are a glutton for punishment. If the obstinacy of Correctional Service of Canada was an irritant, welcome to the quagmire that is Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Julian Portelli, Senior Policy Advisor to Minister David Orazietti, notes your January 1, 2017 appointment as “an independent adviser on corrections reform.” Allow me to independently offer a little focused advice of my own.

Segregation/solitary confinement comes in many and varied forms.

SHU units in Ontario jails are an addendum and alternative to segregation; they’re basically segregation with a television on the range wall. CSCS will argue otherwise, but ask for a log of the number of days or partial days SHU units are locked down, rendering them de facto segregation ranges. Staff shortages are common in some institutions and when guards are needed to cover elsewhere, SHUs are simply locked down, sometimes for days.

Entire institutions can be segregation units. Security incidents warrant jail-wide lockdowns, but consider this. Toronto South Detention Centre was shut at least for Saturday, Sunday and Monday, October 29 to 31. All visits were cancelled. Why? From 7pm Friday, October 28 to 7am Tuesday, November l, 100 uniformed staff members were unable to work their shifts. (See attached copy of November 16 response to request number CSCS-A-2016-05043) There was no security issue at TSDC. Halloween is what there was, and it’s not a stat holiday.

Mr. Sapers, I wish you bon chance with this new assignment. Know that many of us are looking forward to your assessments.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

A few days later on December 3, both Toronto’s Globe and Mail, and Star newspapers ran the announcement that Ontario’s Ombudsman, Paul Dubé, will look into the use of segregation (Toronto Star), or solitary confinement (Globe and Mail) in the province’s institutions.

The terminology is interchangeable and that’s an important distinction; any confinement that resembles either is defined as the same. That comes into play to a greater degree with the federal government and its prisons, where it has insisted there is a difference. Correctional Service of Canada is alone in that position, while all other stakeholders prefer the old adage: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it’s a duck. But, that’s fodder for a later entry.

For now, we sent Mr. Dubé the same letter that Howard Sapers received only a few days earlier.

For someone with knowledge on the subject, the conclusions these two men will reach are almost forgone. What will be interesting is how Ontario reacts……and acts.

……again, and again, and again.

Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky, LLP launched class actions a few months ago against Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services over the extraordinary use of lockdowns in the province’s jails. One, naming London’s Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre has been certified.

While indicators may show fewer lockdowns in some institutions since the law suits came to public attention, one opinion suggests there has been little change. After all, as one inmate pointed out, jail guards are not being sued, and neither is OPSEU, the Ontario Public Servants Employees Union which represents them.

Guards are the wellspring of lockdowns which can be institution-wide, or localized to specific ranges or areas of a jail complex. Lockdowns may or may not affect professional and family visits, although institution-wide security driven lockdowns universally do. Staff shortages trigger partial or total lockdowns and/or a suspension of visits.

There is one interesting example at Toronto South Detention Centre for a potentially frivolous institution-wide lockdown of inmates up to 24 hours a day over at least three days this fall, and which prompted the cancellation of all visits.

Toronto South was locked down on Saturday, October 28, Sunday, October 30, and Monday, October 31. All visits were cancelled over the three days. Shifts at TSDC usually run from 7pm to 7am, and 7am to 7pm, seven days a week. There were no apparent security or safety issues to cause this disruption of routine, but the other possible explanation was a substantial staff shortage.

A freedom of information request to the FOI services division of CSCS on November 2 asked for “the number of uniformed staff members scheduled to be on duty between 7pm, Friday, October 28, 2016, and 7am, Tuesday, November 1, 2016, who were unable to work their shifts during that period.”

The response came back quickly, dated November 16. “There were 100 uniformed staff members unable to work their shift(s) between 7:00pm October 28, 2016, and 7:00am November 1, 2016.”

No request was made for the total number in the uniformed work force scheduled during the period, or the total number of shifts involved. That information would understandably be withheld. All the same, 100 missing bodies would constitute at least a very few hundred uncovered shifts for the three days.

What happened? Halloween happened, and Halloween is not a statutory holiday when shift bonuses kick in.

…..when you can pass the buck.

Poor Howard Sapers. Canada’s beleaguered Correctional Investigator has spent 12 years trying to bring our federal prison system out of the middle ages (well, at least out of the 19th century), and has been rebuffed, patronized, and parceled out time after time. Well, he’s leaving the position at the end of the year, BUT has accepted an appointment as an independent advisor on corrections reform for up to three years with Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services. Now, that’ll be a challenge. We’ll deal with that in another posting…….but, for now……

Here’s a self-explanatory letter to Ontario’s Minister of Health:-

October 28, 2016

Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health & Long Term Care,
Ministry of Health & Long Term Care,
10th Floor, Hepburn Block,
80 Grosvenor Street,
Toronto, ON M7A 2C4

Re: Hygiene standards

Dear Minister Hoskins:

I took a call recently from an inmate at the Toronto South Detention Centre who had been sent to segregation.

He was told he couldn’t have a toothbrush or toothpaste. He couldn’t have soap. A towel and face cloth represented a suicide risk and he couldn’t have a towel or face cloth. Worse, nothing would be available to clean his cell, his sink and toilet after the cell’s previous occupant vacated.

The matter of the risk a towel and face cloth poses is curious. These cells have no projections for suspension. And, a suicidal inmate could choke himself as easily with the waistband of his underwear.

Surely, this policy must contravene basic regulated hygiene standards, and, if this is the rule at TSDC, it must be the same at all provincial institutions.

I bring this to your attention rather than to MCSCS; after all, it is Minister Orazietti’s subordinates who formulated the present practice. Without the intervention by a senior government minister, these unhealthy conditions are likely to continue.
Yours truly,

Charles Klassen

An email came back from “correspondence services” of the ministry on November 14. The body of this read, “Thank you for your email dated October 28, 2016, to the Honourable Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, regarding hygiene standards at a correctional institution. While the ministry appreciates your bringing this issue to our attention, I have copied the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services on this response as that ministry would be best to address you concerns.” In other words, this ain’t my job, man.

Are you kidding?

We wrote back:-

November 15, 2016

J. King, Correspondence Service,
Ministry of Health & Long Term Care,
10th Floor, Hepburn Block,
80 Grosvenor Street,
Toronto, ON M7A 2C4

Dear J. King:

No, no, no!

I sent my letter regarding the sub-standard hygiene policies at Toronto South Detention Centre (copy attached) to Minister Hoskins specifically for his attention. As the Minister of Health for Ontario, surely he is the point person for best practices in health care and hygiene.

Sending this on to Community Safety & Correctional Services because “they would be best to address my concerns” is not only a waste, but a cop-out. CSCS, after all, initiated what must be unacceptable in 21st century Canada.

That is, unless your purpose was to pass a buck, which will get passed, and passed, and passed ‘til it’s forever at the bottom of a forgotten pile, and everyone can go to lunch. That is so typical of government bureaucracies undeserving of public support.

We must have people in office who are not afraid to make some noise!

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen
cc Dr. Eric Hoskins

You know this will go nowhere, don’t you. We’d have to get lawyers and the press involved to make any impression, and then only briefly. Nonetheless, we can’t let our public servants think no one is paying attention, and if just one person suffers indigestion from these comments, the effort is worthwhile.

To move on, here’s a letter to the head of Institutional Services for Ontario’s jails:-

November 1, 2016

Christina Danylchenko, Assistant Deputy Minister,
Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services,
Institutional Services,
25 Grosvenor Street, 17th Floor,
Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6

Re: Policy & Procedures Manual – A deficiency

Dear Deputy Superintendent Danylchenko:

There are about 50 references in the Inmate Information Guide for Adult Institutions (September 2015) advising inmates to speak to staff for help or assistance.

This puts a burden on C.O.’s to retain considerable procedural knowledge and information sources. Institutions are 24/7 operations, and the guide assumes that the delivery of assisted services are consistent over multiple shifts throughout the work week, involving numerous personnel. In practice, this is unfortunately not the reality. While interaction between staff and inmates is encouraged, verbal conflict is commonplace, like it or not. What happens when an inmate is stumped on how to proceed?

What happens when an inmate needs to identify a member of the staff? According to the Institutional Services Division, the only policy relating to staff identification requirements is covered in Regular Duty and Dress Uniform Standards, 6.1.3, Identification Tags. As a routine, staff members wear i.d. tags with their title and the institution’s name showing, while their photo and i.d. number is hidden. What’s more, I would prefer you ask inmates what responses they get from staff when asking for identifications, rather than repeating examples here.

It seems CSCS policy intentionally prevents an inmate from knowing with whom he/she is communicating. I don’t believe that’s the intention, but a lack of will to change the standards for the better results in an unavoidable conclusion.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

Now, granted there are any number of uniformed jail staffers who do their jobs to the best of their abilities, and to the standards their oaths, CSCS policies and procedures require. But there are others, plenty of others whose behavior goes beyond abusive. These misfits have been a part of jail landscapes for decades and once they’re on the public payroll, it’s next to impossible to budge them. It’s a different kind of ‘blue wall.’

Management, even at the highest levels, is fully aware of the concerns put forward by lawyers, judges, activists/advocates, and social workers. The response, if a complainant cannot be ignored summarily, is usually to take all matters under advisement, pass the files from desk to desk, and if pressed, eventually to admit things can be done better.

And that is where it ends……or that is where it has ended for at least the last 25 years we’ve observed jail conditions.

It’s a wonderful life…..when you can pass the buck.