A Toronto Star workplace safety piece in its July 28 edition was headed, “PTSD rates high among male correctional officers.” According to the Department of Public Safety, 36 per cent of men working as guards in federal prisons report the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder, reflecting what the guards say is “the dangerous and emotionally corrosive atmosphere” inside prisons. No information was released for female prison workers.

The article went on to compare the levels of the disorder among some occupations subject to disruptive stressors, and the population in general. The point of the report though was the continuing difficulties these men can have getting the help they feel is needed because not enough attention is paid to their predicament.

This isn’t the first time the complaint has come to the notice of the media. But nowhere has there been a mention that prison conditions subjecting employees to excessive stress always includes components under which inmates are affected by the same stressors. But, inmates are more often than not expected to ‘suck it up.’

Care not for the welfare of criminals if you will, but given the circumstances, why would anyone be surprised the problem for uniformed staff is so persistent?

August 2, 2016

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

Re: PTSD & prison guards

Dear Minister Goodale:

The media is again referencing the high rate of post-traumatic stress disorder among federal prison guards, and the difficulties they encounter qualifying for treatment and compensation.

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 difference 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 charged 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.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

The April 28th letter to Anthony Laycock, Executive Director of the Criminal Lawyers Association, questioned the lack of response from the legal profession to conditions in Ontario’s jails. Not only are inmates awaiting trial and the lawyers who represent them placed at a disadvantage, but administrative, procedural, legal, and human rights irregularities and violations affect the entire provincial penal system population, and bring the justice system we are to respect into disrepute. This letter was published as part of the May 15 “Where are the angry lawyers?” There’s been no response, and one is not expected.

The same question went to a busy, highly qualified, and well thought-of associate in a Toronto criminal law firm. Edited for privacy/confidentiality, the email answer began, “….I don’t want you to think that we do not care about the issues at CSC”….(meaning the provincial Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services, or CSCS). It goes on, “They are very real and live concerns, but unfortunately, fall outside my mandate. I am a defence lawyer. I represent….on criminal related matters………your frustration with the system is shared, but in order to attack it, there needs to be someone with that as their primary function. Unfortunately, the world has too many problems for one person to tackle on their own.”

Understandable.

Also understandable, this part of our question was not addressed, “If criminal lawyers and their firms are too busy to confront problems within CSCS which exacerbate the challenges of providing the best service possible to their in-custody clients, why then are assets not put in place to exercise the beneficial options available?”

Improved client/lawyer communication and case preparation, and a potential profit centre are reasons enough to act. Alone or collectively, criminal law firms simply enlist civil/human rights litigators to take our provincial government to task for redress of complaints, and petition for financial compensation. If our public institutions won’t respond to the scrutiny and criticisms of the media and citizens’ groups, the professionals who are a daily witness earn the right to benefit.

Why hasn’t this materialized? Why has the work been left to the grassroots, to the little guys? One hypothesis suggests those in the best position to do the most good are reluctant to risk being scratched off the government’s Christmas card list.

So then, where does this leave our allegiance?

Naloxone is an opioid antidote. Ontario’s Ministry of Health restricts the distribution of this first-aid treatment to clinics that hand out clean needles to addicts. Public health doctors have asked the government for the last three years for take-home kits to just-released provincial inmates, who can be in particular danger of overdosing on opioids after they leave jail.

In spite of requests from a Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ senior medical consultant to regional medical officers of health for these kits, Health refused to act. Dr. Eric Hoskins, Ontario’s health minister stepped in and ordered his ministry’s staff to begin distributing naloxone ‘immediately’ to newly released inmates at high risk of overdosing.

Regardless of the benefit expanding the program may have, what is most notable here is that a politician stuck out his neck in support of what he sees as a good cause, and contrary to his bureaucrats’ policy. In spite of the support some CSCS officials have for the project though, a monitoring oversight is needed to ensure orders are followed.

Instructions from ‘head office’ can become corrupted ‘in the trenches’, and the case of Christina Jahn examples how orders go unheeded. Ms Jahn was held in solitary confinement for a total of seven months in 2011 and 2012 at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre without the support and medical attention she needed. She filed a human rights complaint, and the two sides agreed to a settlement on the first day the hearing was to begin in 2013.

Ms Jahn was awarded a sum of money, and Correctional Services was required to commit to 10 “public interest remedies” so no one would be in the same position again. But, her lawyers took action against the government in 2015 for violating the terms of the settlement, alleging some Ontario jails were failing to live up to their obligations. New explicit mandates and directives were subsequently issued by CSCS officials to all institutions. The matter is considered as resolved but there is no process to ensure compliance, and third party surveillance would still uncover some failures.

Nevertheless, Minister Hoskins deserves a laurel for the action he took.

July 11, 2016

The Honourable Dr. Eric Hoskins,
Minister of Health & Long-Term Care,
Hepburn Block, 10th Floor,
80 Grosvenor Street,
Toronto, ON M7A 2C4

Re: Congratulations! Naloxone program.

Dear Minister Hoskins:

The 1980s Britcoms “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”, knowledgeably written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, offered an advanced study of how civil service bureaucrats stymie the best intentions of Ministers of the Crown.

It’s refreshing for a government member in your position to overrule staff and order the immediate distribution of naloxone to some newly released provincial inmates. (How refreshing too for ‘immediate’ to appear in government lexicon.) This writer wonders if anyone described the decision as courageous for a politician. Regardless, we need more of this from all areas of administration.

After almost thirty years of observing CSCS, I offer a note of caution. An instruction in place is not the same as an instruction followed. I give you but one sample of good work undone.

After seven months in solitary confinement at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre in 2011 and 2012, Christina Jahn filed a human rights complaint, and settled in 2013 for a sum of money and a commitment by MCSCS to 10 “public interest remedies”. Her lawyers took action against Ontario in 2015 for violating terms of the settlement, alleging some Ontario jails didn’t follow instructions despite direct orders from CSCS officials. Even today, compliance can be an issue.

Consider employing at-arms-length program inspectors.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen
cc David Orazietti, MCSCS

Our recent attention has focused on Ontario’s provincial jail system. The corrections arm of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services is a ‘soft target’, providing rich fodder for complaint, and we could reasonably argue it’s a composter feeding a garden from which we harvest a cornucopia of colourful information to support a critical eye.

One inmate’s judgement that ‘corrections’ does not correct was equally directed at both federal prisons as well as this province’s jails, but the Ontario system’s lack of transparency and accountability make CSCS a particularly menacing Leviathan, an antithesis of the community safety branch of the same government office.

Only by chance did we come across Dan Taekema’s Toronto Star article, “Inmates protest against more lockdowns at Toronto South Detention Centre” published on Friday, June 10 in the on-line edition of the paper.

On Thursday evening, June 9, as many as 160 inmates from the four units on the third floor refused to return to their cells for a lockdown by sitting peacefully in the prison’s yard. The protest was a demonstration against one inmate’s description of “inhumane conditions” because of frustration over frequent lockdowns. This has been an ongoing issue since the superjail opened two years ago, and is a particular problem at Toronto South where lockdowns are frequent (did we say ‘frequent’) and can last for hours or sometimes days.

For public consumption, Andrew Morrison, a spokesperson for the ministry, and OPSEU correction’s division chair Monte Vieselmeyer passed Thursday night’s protest off almost as routine operational procedure. Staff and inmates on the ground saw it differently. The crisis intervention team was brought in, “they got rough with everybody”, according to one account, and guards said the inmates involved were “going through hell.” One inmate’s take: “The guards are tearing the whole place upside-down, taking everyone’s stuff, their clothes and leaving them all in their shorts. They take their mattresses and leave them in their cells with the hatches closed. TVs are off, no phone, no showers for God knows how many days.”

Monte Vieselmeyer explained it was a “peaceful protest” but said he wasn’t sure why the inmates were protesting. We couldn’t leave that uncontested:-

June 28, 2016

Monte Vieselmeyer,
Chair, Corrections Division,
OPSEU,
100 Lesmill Road,
Toronto, ON M3B 3P8

Re: How was Mars?

Chairman Vieselmeyer:

The on-line Toronto Star for June 10 ran Dan Taekema’s “Inmates protest against more lockdowns at Toronto South Detention Centre.” In this piece, you weren’t sure why the inmates were protesting!

You were once on staff at TSDC, and may still be. There’s no Toronto South guard, civilian employee, administrator, lawyer, social/health care worker, volunteer, professional or family visitor, inmate, CSCS minister, deputy minister, or assistant minister who is not familiar with the relentless pattern of lockdowns there, as there are also at other provincial institutions.

Courts are equally well-informed. Superior Court Justice Douglas Gray awarded two Maplehurst inmates $85K last month over the lockdown issue. Also in May, Ontario Court Justice Mary Hogan was prepared to award a TSDC inmate an enhanced credit for time served until his defence and the Crown came to terms on a sentence. Lockdowns are why the media has paid so much attention to Ontario jails.

It’s claimed most lockdowns result from staff shortages, and CSCS has begun a long overdue hiring blitz to address the problem. But, there is another cause of staff shortages; that is, the number of uniformed staff members who do not report for work as scheduled. Access to Information requests indicate dozens of employees are sometimes absent from Toronto South. No doubt the same is true in other jails.

With the clamour over lockdowns, one wonders just where you’ve been to have missed it all.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

blind copies (The blind copies went to CSCS Minister David Orazietti, TSDC Superintendent Mike Wasylyk, and the Toronto Star’s Dan Taekema.

…..they’re pretending not to hear us.

Mary Dwyer is the current manager of health care services at the Toronto South Detention Centre. She came to our attention when she testified in early February in an action by a TSDC inmate looking for redress from the lack of proper medical care in the institution, particularly during lockdowns which are rampant there.

The above is from “Jail health care? Ontario, challenge this!”, an April 10 posting underscoring neo-medieval conditions in parts of the operation of the province’s provincial jails. This entry fleshes out the story referenced on April 10 as one further example of violations of Ministry policy and best practices, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the United Nations’ “Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.”

Gregory Chaytor spent seven months in pre-trial custody in Toronto South awaiting the disposition of drug charges. He pleaded guilty to two offenses, but a sentencing application submitted by his lawyer Michael Leitold (lay-i-told) alleged that Chaytor was subject to “frequent and ever-increasing” lockdowns at Toronto South, amounting to “arbitrary administrative segregation.” Further, he contends he didn’t get appropriate medical or mental health care. As a result, he was seeking an enhanced credit of 1.75 days’ credit for each day served before trial, rather than the usual 1.5 days’ credit.

The sentencing phase began in December of 2015. The Toronto Star published Amy Dempsey’s print and on-line account of the February 5 appearance by Toronto South’s Michael MacLennan, security manager, and Mary Dwyer, the institution’s health care manager, at a pivotal court date in the process.

Ms. Dwyer testified that she had never seen the Star’s articles describing staff and inmate complaints about inadequate medical services, claiming, “I don’t read newspapers….which as you know are not accurate.” Mr. Leitold also asked her about several Ontario Court decisions in which judges criticized health care at the institution. “First time I’m hearing it,” was her response. Not only was her testimony considered surprising given the wide-spread coverage of problems at Toronto South, but Ontario’s Ombudsman had investigated dozens of health-care complaints at the jail and would have been in touch with her department.

Security manager Michael MacLennan conceded that lockdowns are much like solitary confinement, but he contested defence figures on their frequency. During his testimony, it was revealed that not all jail records available on lockdowns had been provided to the defence or the Crown. As a result, Ontario Court Justice Mary Hogan, criticizing the lack of complete information but reserving judgement of whether anyone was to blame, adjourned the hearing until a May date, the earliest available on the calendar, allowing the balance of the records to materialize.

With that, the story ended. No further news appeared in the media. I contacted Michael Leitold in early June for a clarification and resolution.

As it turned out, the Supreme Court of Canada had struck down one of the previous government’s ‘tough-on-crime’ provisions while the Chaytor matter was adjourned. This allowed the defence and the Crown to agree to a sentence of time served for the two offenses, and the judge further sentenced Chaytor to a $10 fine. The SCC decision rendered the application for a super-enhanced credit for adverse pre-trial conditions moot, and so the Court did not rule on the application.

But, according to Mike Leitold, “in passing judgement, the presiding Justice M. Hogan made clear her concern with the evidence she had heard to that point, and opined that she would have likely granted Mr. Chaytor’s application for the enhanced credit.”

It continues to confound that the judiciary frequently faults Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ operation of the province’s jails, while those we elect to ensure what is happening in those institutions does not happen appear oblivious to the issues raised every day by hundreds of inmates and their advocates.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Gray awarded $85,000 to two inmates at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton after ruling their charter rights were violated by staffing-related lockdowns.

In the May 9 week judgement, Justice Gray ruled that recurring and relentless lockdowns, for sometimes up to 50% of the time on average, violated the inmates’ rights to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. “Degrading”, “disproportionate” and “excessive as to outrage standards of decency” is how the judge described the practice. “The conditions of detention during lockdowns are very close to segregation or solitary confinement. In some ways they are worse. The inmate is holed up with another inmate not of his choosing. The actual periods of confinement for 24 hours a day are entirely arbitrary, and unpredictable, both as to timing and length.”

As reported by Amy Dempsey in the Friday, May 13, Toronto Star, the judge rejected an argument made by the province’s lawyers that conditions described by the inmates were not anywhere close to being egregious or shocking to the public and did not violate their rights. Justice Gray ruled that lockdowns “do not arise from legitimate safety and security concerns” but rather because the ministry has been “unwilling or unable to have sufficient staff available.” Not only that, but Ontario has known about the problem since at least 2002 and not corrected it.

Jamil Ogiamien triggered the lawsuit when he filed an application last July alleging unlawful detainment, and inmate Huy Nguyen joined the action. Nguyen was awarded $25,000, to be paid by the province. Ogiamien was awarded $60,000, to be paid jointly by the province and the federal government, since Ottawa is responsible for his detention.

Both men represented themselves in court.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and the Ministry of the Attorney General would not comment as the case is still in the appeal review period, and they would not say if there are plans to appeal.

These same conditions that led to the decision exist elsewhere, notably Lindsay and Toronto South. Barbara Jackman, a lawyer who assisted in the case but did not directly represent the complainants believes this is the first time monetary damages have been awarded for conditions created by lockdowns. Daniel Brown, a criminal defence lawyer and a director with the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, agrees with Ms. Jackman that this may open the door to a class action lawsuit, that other people may bring similar applications in the future, and that this isn’t an isolated problem.

As Daniel Brown put it, the inmates “weren’t asking for steak dinners and comfier beds. They were just saying, don’t lock us up for no reason. Don’t deny us our basic liberties, our right to have a shower and a phone call and contact with our family.”

As we see it, one major obstacle to a flood of actions is the reluctance of some defence lawyers to take on the province, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, prison guards, and OPSEU (Ontario Public Service Employees Union) which represents Ontario’s uniformed jail staff. As a reference, please see the May 15th posting on this site, “Where are the angry lawyers?”

The May 29 posting critical of the overuse of solitary confinement in Canada’s penal institutions targeted Ontario’s provincial system.

The letter to Ontario’s Yasir Naqvi published last week was followed closely by a recommendation to Canada’s Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale for our federal prisons. Correctional Service of Canada has a history of practiced and adroit sidestepping of progressive measures endorsed by the Correctional Investigator, other stake holders, and even political leaders. That’s why Lisa Kerr has insisted that positive structural and procedural changes must be enshrined in legislation.

I wonder if the Trudeau government has the chutzpah to show CSC management that it’s “our way or the road.”

June l, 2016

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

Re: Solitary confinement: Stop the torture

Dear Minister Goodale:

You may be familiar with the Toronto Globe and Mail’s Tuesday, April 26th editorial, “Stop the torture”, a condemnation of Canada’s overuse of segregation in our provincial and federal penal institutions. A copy is attached.

Included as well with this is Lisa Kerr’s “Solitary confinement rules must be written in law”, from the Globe’s Monday, May 2nd edition. Professor Kerr accuses Correctional Service of Canada of pre-empting substantive reforms by only improving procedural inmate protections, which any informed observer knows is no reform at all. She argues that only legislative action will result in the changes your government supports.

Current CSC management has a history of recalcitrance. If you intend to leave the team in place, then at least send Mr. Head and his subordinates on a tour of European prison systems. Denmark and Germany should top the list. Their observations will either inform the direction Canada’s prison policies will take, or persuade Mr. Head, et al, to consider their career options.

Dillydally no more. Act now!

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

cc Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

An unsolicited email received from Yasir Naqvi and dated May 11 invited submissions for the “Comprehensive Review of Segregation” Ontario’s Community Safety & Correctional Services is undertaking. This has been in the works since the media began heavily criticizing federal and provincial governments and our penal systems for its overreliance on the use of solitary confinement, and the resulting damages of the practice.

The invitation came about because of letters sent to Minister Naqvi over time questioning the operation of this province’s jails. However, the deadline for submissions was May 15, too late for us to offer an opinion. It’s never too late though to argue a position. We’ve published our letter to Mr. Naqvi here, and have copied five stakeholders as listed.

There is a reference in the letter to the Globe and Mail’s Tuesday, April 26 editorial, “Solitary Confinement: Stop the torture”, and copies were attached to the addressees. Copyright prevents our reproducing it here, but we can quote from it.

Firstly, the title is definitive. The editorial begins, “What does it take to get governments to pay attention to crises of their own making? In the case of the cruel overuse of solitary confinement…….., the answer would appear to be that there is nothing at all that can move authorities to action.” It continues, “….only Ottawa has made a firm commitment of any kind to ban long-term solitary confinement in federal prisons…”, and concludes, “Solitary confinement, when misused the way it too often is in Canada, is torture. Only the 14 governments that oversee it can fix this. That only one has made a commitment to do so is shameful.”

May 24, 2016

The Honourable Yasir Naqvi,
Minister of Community Safety & Correctional Services,
18th Floor, George Drew Building.
25 Grosvenor Street,
Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6

Re: Comprehensive Review of Segregation

Dear Minister Naqvi:

I thank you for your May 11 email requesting submissions around a review of segregation policies in the province’s jails, but your May 15 deadline left me unable to contribute. Nonetheless, I will comment.

First, I would recommend the Globe and Mail Editorial from Tuesday, April 26 of this year, entitled “Solitary Confinement: Stop the torture”, copy attached.

Reform evasion: Correctional Service of Canada has attempted to pre-empt federal reforms to segregation by voluntarily revising its use of solitary confinement, but only by improving procedural policies. Practices don’t change. Likewise, CSCS is using SHU (Special Handling Unit) ranges to move inmates out of segregation into an environment which can easily be as bad, or worse, than segregation, primarily because of incessant lockdowns. When staff shortages arise elsewhere in an institution, guards are pulled from SHU ranges and inmates there are simply locked down, sometimes for days. But, technically, the SHU is not ‘segregation’ and not subject to the review you are undertaking.

Compliance: Your office and CSCS management presume policies, practices and procedures in force within our provincial institutions are followed as a matter of course. I don’t doubt they are, to a large degree. However, there isn’t an inmate or inmate support who doesn’t understand best practices are at times compromised as “suggestions”, while relevant documentation will conform to the management model all the same. CSCS has not thus far guaranteed safeguards to independently scrutinize compliance.

Inmate Remedy: Provincial inmates have no substantive resource to challenge a segregation placement, or any institutional decision for that matter. Internal options are weighted against a complainant. Most external choices manage broad mandates which can leave jail inmates in a priority margin. Not only that, but even if an inmate is able to access the Inmate Information Guide for Adult Institutions (September 2015), pages 10 to 15, and can obtain assistance from staff, the complexities of the process can seem daunting, be discouraging, and too often regarded as futile, particularly where there are financial considerations.

There is no Utopian solution, but a major move in the right direction would see Ontario establish a dedicated destination solely for prisoner petitions, similar to the federal Office of the Correctional Investigator. An important distinction between the federal OCI and an Ontario equivalent though would have the provincial office submit its annual report directly to the legislature, rather than through CSCS or the Attorney General.

Whatever changes your office proposes, the objective must be a level playing field, both in substance, and with the perception, of fairness, legitimacy and impartiality, backed by an at-arms-length enforcement component.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

Margaret Welch, Associate Deputy Minister, Correctional Services, MCSCS
Christina Danylchenko, Assistant Deputy Minister, Institutional Services, MCSCS
Paul Dubé, Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario
Human Rights Legal Support Centre,
Honourable Glen Murray, Ministry of Environment & Climate Change

Note:  Glen Murray is our local MPP

A social/legal worker who frequently visits Ontario’s provincial jails to assist inmates with navigating our courts arrived at an institution one evening for an 8pm appointment. The meeting was to finalize a court-ordered report which would expedite an inmate’s release. But, time was short, and a deadline loomed.

After signing in, shown into an interview room, and then waiting twenty minutes, a staff member told this worker that the inmate had refused the meeting. This wasn’t true, the worker knew that, but said nothing, and left the institution.

Why would the worker be told what all involved knew was a lie, and why would the worker not protest? Why would one of your public servants interfere?

Well, perhaps a guard was angry with the inmate for some reason, or annoyed with the worker. Maybe no guard wanted to escort the inmate to the meeting. Perhaps available guards just couldn’t be bothered. The possibilities are aplenty.

Doesn’t happen? Really? Then you need to speak to an officer of the court, a social/legal worker, a lawyer…..or, perhaps a jail guard.

Why wouldn’t the worker complain? Because, quite simply, a complaint would make later work more difficult in any provincial jail.

Doesn’t happen? Really? Then, you need to speak to an officer of the court, a social/legal worker, a lawyer…..or perhaps a jail guard.

Why not post names, dates, places, more complete details? Well, if the HonourableYasir Naqvi, Ontario’s Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Service, thinks all is right with the world, then more information puts people at risk…….from our own public servants.

One other example, but with a another inmate. A lawyer arrived at an institution to meet a client, and was subsequently told the visit was refused. And to repeat, this was a lawyer trying to confer with a client. Of course the inmate had not refused, the lawyer knew this and perhaps wasn’t compliant and humble, so when the same lawyer arrived at another time to meet with the same client, the lawyer was told the client had been moved to a different institution. The lawyer went to the other location only to learn no such transfer had taken place. Again, identifying details only jeopardizes the lawyer/client relationship…..again, from our own public servants.

Doesn’t happen? Really? Then you need to speak to an officer of the court, a social/legal worker, a lawyer….or perhaps a jail guard.

Granted, this isn’t part of the daily routine and the frequency with which it occurs is a subject for speculation, but that it happens at all is unacceptable. This is but one of a few shortcomings within our provincial penal system that confounds the administration of justice and which prompted this letter to the Criminal Lawyers Association:-

April 28, 2016

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

Re: Ontario’s provincial jails

Dear Director Laycock:

For the last twenty-five years or more of observation and tapping into the first-hand experiences of others, the penal institutions operated by Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services posit one omni-present question.

Why are you putting up with the conditions under which you and your clients suffer?

Set aside how widely known to the public the circumstances in our jails are, certainly every person walking the corridors of any Ontario provincial courthouse is aware of a high degree of ethical and moral corruption among some front-line uniformed jail workers. At the very least, this is costly to you, the people you represent, and the operation of our courts. At worst, it ‘brings our system of justice into disrepute.’

Bottom line: this would be better if it didn’t stink!

Remedies? MCSCS management and their political masters do their jobs, insisting that policies, procedures, best practices……and the law, are not only followed, but that compliance and accountability are watchwords throughout the ministry. A responsible, progressive, responsive government sets up an inmate-exclusive resource like the federal Office of the Correctional Investigator.

Reform is unlikely though until you, your organization, lawyers, their firms, and the courts prod, provoke and challenge the status quo. Change cannot come soon enough.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

For years Stephen Harper and his crew played politics with logic. His government’s so-called tough-on-crime agenda defied the best available evidence in the field, costing taxpayers dearly and playing to a base that, like him and his colleagues, relished the wrong side of right.

Much can be written of the damage done, the thorny path to navigate the murky maze to daylight, and the challenges to initiating more progressive solutions. In the meantime though, and given recent Supreme Court decisions, a short and pointed jab to twisted egos offered a sunny spring recess from the serious business of resetting our priorities.

April 23, 2016

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 0A6

Mr. Harper:

“Supreme Court rules against tough-on-crime legislation”
Toronto Star, Friday, April 15, 2016
“Supreme Court rulings signal end for Tories’ tough-on –crime sentences”
Globe and Mail, Friday, April 15, 2016
“Scrap these laws”
Toronto Star Editorial, Monday, April 18, 2016
“No longer mandatory”
Globe and Mail Editorial, Monday, April 18, 2016

And who didn’t know that reason would prevail as soon as the medievalists were booted from office.

I told ya, I told ya, I told ya…….

Charles H. Klassen

copies to: Rob Nicholson/Victor Toews/Steven Blaney