…..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.

…..beats ‘City Hall’.

Toronto’s Globe and Mail ran Patrick White’s “How a self-represented inmate fought and won release from solitary” in late summer.

This is a story we should never have to read. This is an example of what should not happen. And it wouldn’t, if our public servants followed the rules of their own making, using the authority we give them, obeyed the laws of the land, our land, and understood it is the people’s agenda and the people’s best interests that are paramount.

His name is Matthew Hamm. He’s a 37 year-old convict with multiple mental health diagnoses who has spent almost half his life in prison for various non-violent offences.

Near the end of June of this year, he and four other inmates at Edmonton Institution were moved from a mental-health unit to segregation. Guards assured them the change was unofficial and temporary, but soon after, the extra time out of their cells stopped and they were locked up for 23 hours a day. Officials then claimed the reason for the segregation placement was a confidential informant’s statement that the inmates were planning to attack several guards.

The information was baseless, and the informant later recanted his charges in writing, saying he had created the allegations because staff had offered to move him from segregation and get him a television. Nothing changed for Matthew Hamm and the four others, and “they (staff) didn’t seem to care.”

Mr. Hamm had learned habeus corpus law while serving an earlier sentence in a Saskatchewan federal prison when he challenged an arbitrary security classification, representing himself. He now took Correctional Service of Canada to court again, and again representing himself. Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice J.B. Veit gave Mr. Hamm considerable leeway to present his arguments and at one point he spoke for five straight hours. The hearing lasted three and half days.

The 44 page decision came down on August 10, Prisoners’ Justice Day. The court accepted his arguments and ordered the immediate release of the inmates from segregation. Matthew Hamm did this knowing he had only a very few months left on his sentence, and knowing too that once he began his action, guards in the prison would harass and inconvenience him at every turn. And, that is not the end of it; now he has to file in federal court to have the false allegations removed from his file.

To repeat, this is not about one inmate, one ‘criminal’ beating the system. The back story here is the significant relevance. This is about a public institution, one of our tax-payer funded federal prisons, that makes a wrong decision, perhaps well-intended, but negatively affecting five people in its charge, and then does nothing to correct the error. Not only that, but it encumbers the efforts of one individual seeking redress through the courts, waits to be ordered to follow its own policies, and of course won’t comment pending a review which might include an appeal.

And, all on your dollar!

……and, it’s costing every taxpayer in the province.

A Globe and Mail editorial on Friday, September 23, reviewed a contentious issue with the province’s justice system that’s been simmering for decades. Titled “Why Ontario courts are overcharged”, it questions a practice that is expensive, counterproductive, socially corrosive, and incidentally, should place a liability on the province for punitive damages…although it rarely does.

Ontario has the lowest violent crime rate in Canada but its justice system is chaotic and provincial jails are full of people on remand, waiting months and sometimes years for charges to be resolved.

The editorial was prompted by a newly-released study by the MacDonald-Laurier Institute which evaluates and grades criminal justice in the country’s provinces and territories. Its finding indicate police in Ontario lay too many charges that go nowhere. This is a common practice where peripheral charges are piled on for effect, or where unsolved crimes are ascribed to a person charged with a similar offence. What’s the old saying: Let’s run it up the pole and see who salutes!

Let’s cite the stats. In Ontario, 43 per cent of charges laid are eventually dropped or withdrawn. Of the balance, the conviction rate is 55 per cent. Ontario has the lowest conviction rate in the country, and the highest number of cases that are dropped. In Quebec and British Columbia by comparison, police must get the approval of a Crown prosecutor before laying charges. Quebec’s conviction rate is 75 per cent while only 8.6 per cent of charges are dropped or withdrawn. British Columbia has a 70 per cent conviction rate, with 29 per cent of cases dropped or withdrawn.

Ontario has argued that separating the police’s investigative function and the Crown’s prosecutorial role provides checks and balances for a more just system. There’s no indication offenders in Quebec and British Columbia are getting off lightly, while Ontario not only drives up costs across the board, but perception makes the process less transparent.

Perhaps the province could do the same with this issue as it is with the overuse of solitary confinement in its jails: have a study leading to a review leading to another study leading to………..

The United States of America heralds itself as the world’s premiere champion of democratic principles and human rights, but with only 5% of the earth’s population, it has 25% of its prison inmates. Notorious human rights offenders like China and Iran don’t incarcerate its citizens to the same degree as the U.S. The United States was also in the forefront of privatizing prison services……..prisons for profits.

Reducing the numbers of Americans in prison is an issue during this year’s presidential campaign, but it’s a backburner item. A concern for the centre and left of centre, prison populations involve states’ rights which are more a conservative cause. This won’t be front of mind for the candidates.

But now to the question of who runs U.S. prisons. As the Washington Post recently reported, after years of documented human rights abuses by the private prison industry, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is finally ending its use of privately-run, for-profit prisons. As Senator Bernie Sanders put it in a press statement responding to the DOJ decision, “Study after study after study has shown private prisons are not cheaper, they are not safer, and they do not provide better outcomes for either the prisoners or the state.”

On the contrary, corporations in the business of operating prisons for profit are planning for growth, looking for cost cutting efficiencies, and opportunities to benefit from criminal activity.

Unfortunately, the U.S. federal prison population currently stands at about 193,000, and is dropping due to changes in sentencing policies over the last three years. Of this, only 22,660 inmates are living in federal private prisons. While this represents a small minority of the total number of men and women imprisoned in the country, the feds example should spur state governments to take a closer look at their penal systems.

The Justice Department’s decision doesn’t put an immediate end to their partnership with the private prison industry. It instructs officials to decline to renew contracts or to limit a contract’s scope, with a goal to reduce and eventually end the use of privately operated prisons.

This doesn’t cover private prisons used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is asking the U.S. government to act on these centers as well. “The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose civil immigration detention facilities form a far larger component of private prison contractors’ portfolios, must immediately follow the DOJ’s example. Locking up immigrants, including families and children fleeing extreme violence in Central American, should not be a source of profit for huge corporations, particularly given private contractors’ terrible record providing inadequate medical and medical health care to dying immigrants.”

Whatever criticism can be levelled at government operated prisons, here or in the U.S., there is still no excuse to allow for-profit corporations to use crime to fuel a growth industry, abuse the human rights of individuals, criminals or not, and promote recidivism rates at the risk of community safety.

The September 25 posting to Justice for Brennan Guigue, “What say you, Minister?”, was prompted by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale’s response to the death of inmate Matthew Hines at Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick on May 27 in 2015.

CBC News has added two additional postings on this – “Correctional service admits ‘staff misconduct’ in inmate’s death”, and, “Prison watchdog investigates death of N.B. inmate pepper-sprayed 5 times by guards”

The ‘prison watchdog’ is Howard Sapers, Canada’s Correctional Investigator.  He’s been looking into this since Matthew Hines died when his department’s investigation asked how and why guards beat and then repeatedly pepper-sprayed the inmate before his death.  According to Sapers, his office has been held up by one missing piece, the New Brunswick coroner’s report showing a definitive cause of death.

Correctional Service of Canada cites privacy legislation which prevents it from discussing specifics of Matthew Hines death, or why the original story CSC offered of the incident differs from its own investigative report issued more than a year later.

Likewise, Ralph Goodale’s office won’t comment beyond the statement it released on August 24 because of the ongoing CSC investigation.

Canada’s privacy legislation has been a boon to our government ministries.  Correctional Service of Canada makes frequent use of it.  In the matter of Matthew Hines, CSC is still referencing it even though the principal is dead.

In the meantime, the RCMP has reopened its investigation into this death-in-custody. Initially, foul play was ruled out and the file was closed, but “additional information” has persuaded the police to take another look, although it wouldn’t say what new information was uncovered.

Scott Harris, the CSC regional deputy commissioner for the Atlantic region, admitted there was “staff misconduct” and “excessive force” in the case of Matthew Hines.  One staff member was fired and three others have been disciplined.  “We take this case very seriously and we’re trying to learn from it,” Harris said.

CSC’s internal board of investigation found at least 12 instances where staff did not follow policy.  Harris’ statement listed changes the agency is making because of this death-in-custody, including more front-line staff training with the handling of mental health issues.

Scott Harris followed what seems to be Correctional Service of Canada’s standard operating policy when it concedes there’s been an operational wrongdoing.  Use privacy legislation to limit disclosure, underscore the serious concern for policy violations, announce the changes that are intended, and express an intention to learn from the experience.   We shouldn’t discount CSC’s sincerity when its spokespersons toe this line. There are no doubt components within the system that have the best interests of all stakeholders in mind.  But, neither is there any question about what lessons can be learned and by whom and for what purpose.  It depends on perspective.  To Don Head, the Commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada, the in-custody death of an inmate where policy and human rights violations are in evidence are black marks his already beleaguered department can do without.  To the tiers of management working under him, how professionally misadventures like the mistreatment of inmates are handled when information becomes public may impact future career outcomes.  To the guards in our prisons and their immediate institutional superiors, one of their own has been fired and three others disciplined (although we can’t know what that entails) following the investigation of this event.  Minimizing public exposure in all aspects of job performance is a priority. Remember that Brennan Guigue was removed from RCC in Montreal within hours after the OC assault, sent to Donnacona (CSC had to make room for him on a ‘load’), immediately placed in segregation there to keep him out of sight, and the institution’s health care unit refused to document his injuries.

Matthew Hines two sisters have hired a lawyer.

 

A letter went to Correctional Services Minister David Orazietti back in the second week of July, commenting on conditions in Ontario’s jails that have been ongoing since the last century ….maybe longer. This letter was sparked by Health Minister Eric Hoskins’ use of an executive order in his ministry to override bureaucratic objections to a program he felt benefited Ontario, and he put it into play under his own authority. Would Minister Orazietti consider such a move to avoid protracted delays and initiate progressive measures at CSCS?

July 12, 2016

The Honourable David Orazietti,
Minister of Community Safety & Correctional Services,
25 Grosvenor Street, 18th Floor,
Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6

Dear Minister Orazietti:

You are the latest in a long line of CSCS ministers during my almost thirty years of observing Ontario’s jails.

Liberal, Conservative, or New Democrat, all have overseen a system rife with continuing, and for the most part ignored, human rights violations and operational issues. Our courts have remedied specific complaints from time to time, like the recent award to two Maplehurst inmates, but a fundamental reboot of this ministry branch hasn’t materialized.

Yasir Naqvi, your predecessor, began a review of segregation policies, and addressed staffing concerns that lead to rampant lockdowns, the two current “flavours of the month.” Unfortunately, the policy process Mr. Naqvi initiated may meander through a bureaucratic maze for months with minimal or no progressive results. Dr. Eric Hoskins’ refreshing ‘executive order’ to begin distributing naxolone kits to at risk newly released inmates is an option you also have in your arsenal to effect changes with segregation and SHU policies.

Staff shortages continue to drive almost daily lockdowns in some institutions, but are not always related to too few guards, albeit that contributes to the problem. CSCS is now engaged in a recruitment/hiring blitz, assuming that will resolve a long-standing complaint from OPSEU. However, tucked away almost out of sight, is the matter of the number of uniformed staff who do not report for scheduled shifts, making lockdowns/partial lockdowns unavoidable.

An analysis of absenteeism might prove enlightening.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen
cc Yasir Naqvi, Attorney General

‘Courageous’ actions by politicians are rare. They are, after all, politically risky. We got what we expected from Mr. Orazietti.

And now, along has come the ‘lockdowns’ class-actions which will challenge the government to pay up, and put up, in that order. There is no short-cut or easy path to reform. After all, your governments have plenty of your tax dollars, and influence, to waylay the crusaders, “kettle” the troops in the rain ‘til the armour rusts, and all the while argue the kingdom is orderly and nothing is amiss, nothing is amiss, nothing is amiss, nothing………!

Remember too, experience tells us that just because a court supports a claim and orders restitution and action for fairness in policy doesn’t guarantee the expected and anticipated outcome. Only the vigilance of the people will have an impact.

To that end, we wanted to be heard again.

September 13, 2016

The Honourable David Orazietti,
Minister of Community Safety & Correctional Services,
25 Grosvenor Street, 18th Floor,
Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6

Re: Class-Actions

Dear Minister Orazietti:

Regrettably, you didn’t respond to my July 12th letter. Your silence could be construed as backing the status quo. My staff absenteeism in provincial jails comment, and research through information access requests indicates this is a contributing factor to the rampant lockdowns leading to the three class actions against Ontario’s government.

The suits are a start in support of reform, accountability, and transparency, although your senior bureaucrats no doubt will disagree. But then, I don’t expect otherwise when conditions in the provincial jails have been as they are for so long, and tolerated by public servants in a position to right what is so obviously wrong.

It isn’t only the tyranny of lockdowns that discredit CSCS. These institutions can be taken to task for a number of infringements of civilized and professional conduct that society at large wouldn’t accept. From the vagaries of health care, through failures to follow prescribed procedures and policies, to the malfeasance of authority to act on violations of operational practices, there is tinder enough to fuel more legal actions. To boot, inmates have no substantive recourse for redress outside the courts. Only the want of private will and resources saves the government from telling embarrassments.

You’re not responsible for this, but you are today’s CSCS point person. I am but one of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of aware Ontarians…….waiting, waiting, waiting.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

copied to:
Kathleen Wynne, Premier, Province of Ontario
Yasir Naqvi, Attorney General, Province of Ontario
Matthew Torigian, Deputy Minister, Community Safety & Correctional Services,
Margaret Welch, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety & Correctional Services
Rohan Thompson, Chief of Oversight & Investigation, MCSCS
Christina Danylchenko, Assistant Deputy Minister, Institutional Services, MCSCS
Nancy Sanders, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operational Support, MCSCS
Paul Dubé, Ombudsman, Province of Ontario
Amy Dempsey, The Toronto Star
Patrick White, The Globe and Mail
turnoverarocktoday.com

 

We wrote Anthony Laycock of the Criminal Lawyers Association back on April 28, challenging him, the association he heads, and its members to confront the Ontario government over its operation of the province’s jails. “Where are the angry lawyers?” was published on May 15, along with the letter and some supporting background. No response was expected, although some of you assumed one would follow, but Mr. Laycock has so far been silent.

We had an extensive exchange on the issue with a criminal lawyer who carries a large case load. It began amiably but dissolved into an unintentionally contentious debate when we appeared to question why peer relationships within the practice of law and government ministries might outweigh the best interests of clients. Quite simply, we were accused of being impertinent and insulting. So be it.

Now that class actions are in the works, we went back to Mr. Laycock. Don’t expect him to comment this time ‘round either.

September 2, 2016

Anthony Laycock, Executive Director,
Criminal Lawyers Association,
189 Queen Street East, Suite #1,
Toronto, ON M5A 1S2

Re: Provincial Jails – Encore

Dear Director Laycock:

My April 28th letter questioned the apparent reluctance by those in positions of advantage to champion reforms in Ontario’s provincial jails and initiate calls for change. I had looked forward to your comments.

A criminal lawyer with whom I discussed this admitted that conditions in the jails were troubling and difficult, but suggested I didn’t understand how the justice system functioned. On the contrary, my business career before I left to pursue other interests was dominated by the politics of business and the business of politics. I’m not a lawyer, but business relationships have similar characteristics across the full spectrum of human experience.

It’s heartening to have Superior Court Justice Douglas Gray take up the cause of two Maplehurst inmates in a May judgement against the province for excessive lockdowns. Even more impressive, the Koskie Minsky LLP filings of three class actions against Ontario are a victory for progress. The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services has had enough latitude to do its job, and should be penalized for its complacency and failures.

Your association can best serve justice by calling on its members to assist jailed clients in connecting with Koskie Minsky. This surely cannot be an onerous burden, and I encourage you to act.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

“As many as 200,000 current and former Ontario inmates could be headed for a massive payday if allegations contained in a new lawsuit against the provincial government hold up in court.”

This is how Patrick White began his “Inmates file lockdown class-action suit” in the Tuesday, August 16th Globe and Mail. He later referenced in his article the May award of $85,000 in damages to two Maplehurst inmates for excessive lockdowns, calculating this worked out to $21,250 for every year these two men spent in custody. (See “Do your job…..or pay”, published June 19) He went on to suggest, “Scale that up to thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of inmates and the total payout could be colossal.”

Toronto-based Koskie Minsky LLP, one of Canada’s premier class-action law firms, added in its own announcement the day before, “The action alleges that endemic lockdowns arising from the Province of Ontario’s failure to properly staff its correctional institution facilities have caused and continue to cause tremendous physical and psychological damage to inmates across the Province.”

The action is open to almost all inmates who have spent time in an Ontario jail since 2002. That’s when judges first began awarding compensations in their sentencing decisions for the province’s practice of locking down ranges because of short staffing levels.

According to Jonathan Ptak, one of the lawyers involved, “We’re talking about an extremely large claim.”

The class action announced on August 15 excludes prisoners of Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (solely with respect to their incarceration at the facility), as a separate action was filed earlier on their behalf. A judge certified this suit on August 24, allowing it to go forward.

Koskie Minsky had already announced on August 11 the commencement of a class-action against the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario alleging human rights violations relating to the treatment of immigrant detainees in Ontario’s prisons. It accuses Canada Border Services Agency and the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services of negligence, breach of fiduciary duties and violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by holding immigrant detainees in Ontario jails.

Current and former prisoners are encouraged to visit http://www.kmlaw.ca or call 1-866-777-6339.

Class-actions have a history of taking a long time to reach a resolution, but the wait can be rewarding for the complainants.

“Torture us no more. Now for the feds…..”, was published on June 5. Reprinted in it was a letter to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, encouraging the minister to move forward with long overdue federal prison reforms. It included yet another warning of Correctional Service of Canada’s reluctance to accept outside recommendations, let alone government directives. We didn’t expect an answer. We didn’t want a response. We wanted action.

Nonetheless, a letter arrived in early July over the minister’s signature. Unfortunately, it met the criteria for implausibility. Here’s what Mr. Goodale had to say:-

‘Thank you for your correspondence of June 1, 2016, in which your express you concerns regarding the use of administrative segregation in federal correctional institutions.

Our government is committed to implementing the recommendations from the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith on restricting the use of administrative segregation and the treatment of those with mental illness.

That said, the law provides for administrative segregation in limited circumstances to help ensure the safety of all inmates, staff and visitors. Specific legal requirements are set out in section 31 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and must be met in order to place an inmate in administrative segregation, including that there be no reasonable alternative and that the inmate be released from segregation at the earliest appropriate time.

We recognize that the challenges raised by these issues are complex and require careful consideration. Canadians expect us to do better – and we will.

Thank you again for writing.’

Should this just be put to file with a shrug? Is objecting to a public servant’s disappointing, cursory, scripted shuffle meat for further correspondence?

Don’t you just hate it when that happens!

As Minister Goodale’s letter sat pending a second look, the August 19 Globe and Mail ran Patrick White’s story, “Court ruling a rebuke of prison system’s use of solitary confinement.”

In this account, three inmates at the maximum-security Edmonton Institution were placed in solitary confinement in late June when a manager learned from a confidential informant that the three men were planning an assault on a group of guards. No criminal or institutional charges were laid. Of the three, one suffers from bipolar disorder, the other two are aboriginal.

CSC is legally obliged to provide inmates with detailed reasons for a segregation placement. This didn’t happen, and the men, without lawyers, filed an application of habeas corpus, and forced a judicial review of the decision to isolate them.

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Joanne Veit freed the men from segregation because prison authorities ignored factors around procedural fairness, aboriginal identity and mental health history. “Given the basis on which the inmates were sent to solitary confinement, and the individual mental health and aboriginal circumstances of each inmate, the decisions to send each of them to solitary confinement is not reasonable,” the judge concluded. “In the totality of the evidence on this application, I am unable to conclude that the institution had available reliable and credible information that these applicants were planning a serious assault…….,” she added.

Further, and just as serious, the judge found that despite CSC’s commitment to the accommodation of aboriginal identity and mental-health issues, Edmonton Institution gave no considerations to this.

So here we have three prison inmates doing this hard work from segregation on their own, so that others in the same situation can use this decision, and because they were tired of having CSC staff and management take the law into their own hands.

Don’t you just hate it when that happens!

Minister Goodale needed another shot………

August 22, 2016

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

Re: Unreasonable delays

Dear Minister Goodale:

The July 4 response to my June 1 letter was unexpected. Your time is valuable, and a template letter is both patronizing and not worthy of your high office. Surely, you cannot believe section 31 of the CCRA holds sway with Correctional Service of Canada’s operation when it doesn’t suit their interest.

The 104 recommendations that came out of the Ashley Smith inquest are now more than two and half years old. I don’t doubt you and your government’s commitment to implementation. I do strongly doubt CSC’s cooperation under its current management. The agency has had more than enough time to initiate substantive progressive reforms without prodding.

And yet, as the Globe and Mail reported on August 19, “Court ruling a rebuke of prison system’s use of solitary confinement”, Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found grounds to underscore CSC’s continuing and ongoing failures.

One wonders just how long before action replaces “careful consideration.”

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen
cc Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

It wasn’t until August 1 that the Globe and Mail reported that Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Rabould had organized a meeting that took place on May 19 and 20 with sitting judges, criminal lawyers, and former Prime Minister Kim Campbell to discuss what should be next on her agenda after the assisted-death bill had passed.

The group concluded her first priority should be to reduce the numbers of men and women in this country’s jails and prisons.  “There wasn’t one person who felt that what’s happened in the last 10 years in criminal justice is healthy,” according to a participant. While that was the consensus around the table, a confidentiality clause prevents disclosure of specific accounts. Justin Trudeau mandated this review of the previous government’s punitive agenda, and the May meeting summary stressed a core need to help individuals avoid conflict with the law. “The criminal justice system is rarely the answer and should function as a last resort.”

Sean Fine’s “Private meeting convened by justice minister decides focus should be on prison reform” ran on the Globe’s front page that first day of August. It’s an interesting read. Four judges were a part of the panel, two currently serving, along with four criminal lawyers, the country’s chief statistician, and a strong aboriginal contingent, among others. There was only one police representative, no one to speak for victims, and one prosecutor, retired at that, and with a background in aboriginal justice to boot.

We noticed one particular weakness in the group…….the omission of anyone actually involved with the running of our federal prisons, or the monitoring of their operation.

August 8, 2016

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould,
Minister of Justice,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Re: Private meeting convened by justice minister decides focus should be on prison reform. (Globe and Mail, Monday, August 1, 2016)

Dear Minister Wilson-Raybould:

Wonderful!

Your mandate to review criminal justice and reduce the numbers in Canadian jails is to be applauded. I suggest though this is somewhat like the sound of one shoe dropping.

Public Safety’s Ralph Goodale must be integral to progressive, sustainable reforms. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act is past due for rewrite, as is the need to reboot Correctional Service of Canada.
Howard Sapers, Canada’s formidable Correctional Investigator, is a terrific resource to your end. He’s ready with a wealth of researched material on all aspects of our prison operation, from the use of solitary confinement, health care concerns, programming limitations, the self-serving withholding of information, the very necessary review of inmate pay scales, and much more.

As well, a study of prisons in any number of European countries would positively enhance the outcome of the project you’ve undertaken.

Be encouraged, Be creative. Be firm.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

cc Mssrs Trudeau, Goodale, Sapers