Solitary Confinement

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

…..for now, a few words.

Canada’s provincial/federal prison industry uses various labels to define separating an inmate from population. For clarity, when anyone is put in close confinement for up to 22 to 24 hours per day with little or no human contact, that is solitary confinement. Conditions are worsened when that person is deprived of personal property, or put on a restricted diet, or denied access to resources.

For a time, our federal government even denied Correctional Service of Canada used solitary confinement, preferring less severe terminology, and pointing to policy that safeguarded inmate welfare. But, CSC also consistently rejects that a conflict between policy and practice exists, in spite of overwhelming contrarian evidence.

Media coverage of solitary confinement has been extensive over the last few years, two major law suits against the federal government have played out, there’s a class action protesting its use pending in Ontario, and legal actions proliferate elsewhere in the country.

We’ve hesitated to join the ‘solitary confinement discussion’ in the belief that the exposure, controversy, and criticism would move the goal posts to a place where we could applaud positive outcomes in a more enlightened environment.

Sadly, if that is ever to be, it will take more than the efforts we’ve seen so far.

For all the talk, for all the coverage, for all the adverse court judgments, for all the science, provincial and federal governments are wriggling to find ways through the noise and around the legal condemnations to end up back at square one but with new labeling and tweaked policies. Let’s call it solitary confinement refigured.

Ontario passed legislation last year in an attempt to satisfy critics, but it didn’t receive Royal Assent before the latest election. It sits in limbo. The new government is looking to put forward its own version, and in the meantime, we’ve learned the use of solitary confinement in Ontario’s provincial jails has actually increased.

The Liberal federal government promised a different perspective on the Conservative tough-on-crime agenda, and the present scrutiny of solitary confinement policy prompted prioritizing a look-see in that direction. But, the government stalled and delayed, and two major segregation law suits, one in B.C. and the other in Ontario, went against it.

Our government appealed the court decisions on the one hand, and put forward Bill C-83 as a ‘solution’ on the other. As a compromise, the courts in Ontario and B.C. gave Ottawa a few more months to get its act together. C-83 passed first reading and is in committee, but its intent is to mollify all stakeholders by yielding a little to everyone. That spells failure.

Our prison industries are working industriously on apparent changes to solitary confinement which in truth will have little or no impact on improving sentencing goals. Yes, there has to be recourse for circumstances where difficult and dangerous incidents arise, but the proposed federal legislation is vague and subjective where security and control is important.

Federal or provincial, our governments are determined to exclude at-arms-length third party oversight or hard limitations on how long and to what degree it segregates prisoners. It is dead set against any push to “light up the darkness” or make our prison agencies accountable and transparent.

This is one more item getting deserved attention, and we’ll return to it down the road. In the meantime, one wonders…….

……exactly why are our politicians and civil servants afraid to do the right thing?

Another rock is turned over!

turnoverarocktoday Comment

Millhaven’s Visitor Review Board wouldn’t respond (December 23 posting)…..
…..and we pointed that out!

January 16, 2019

Visitor Review Board,
Millhaven Institution,
Bath, ON K0H 1G0

Re: Suspension of PFV’s & visiting sanction at Millhaven Institution

Visitor Review Board:

Your November 29 letter over Correctional Manager D. Payette’s signature did not address the substance of my November 12 letter, noting only that it was presented to the VRB, read, and then placed in Brennan Guigue’s visiting file. You were also dismissive of what Brennan Guigue had to say when he attended the November 14 Board meeting.

That is not acceptable.

When, as your letter read, “During processing, there was a positive indication on one of our Drug Screening Tools,” why were the police not involved? If I was presumed to be carrying drugs, bringing in the police was a next step to recover contraband, to be followed by a press release on the CSC web site announcing a seizure at Millhaven Institution.

Why were the police not called on November 9? The involved party/parties at Millhaven knew there was no ‘package’ to find. There was no press release in the offing. Simply, the cancellation of this visit was the objective. Moreover, my visit was cancelled before I arrived at the prison on Friday morning; it was only a matter of logistics after I checked in. I know that. Brennan Guigue knows that. My circle in the community at large knows that.

The Millhaven Visitor Review Board approval of PFV’s represents the one opportunity where my son and I can spend time together, given my circumstances, and that was considered in your deliberations. In spite of the institution’s reputation in the community, my only concern on that Friday morning was doing without some of the supports that help get me through the day because of what V & C doesn’t allow into a PFV.

If interests at Millhaven don’t like my advocacy and activism over many decades, so be it. If those same interests don’t like Brennan Guigue’s insistence that our prison system and its employees comply with policy, so be it. So be it that I don’t like CSC practice that runs contrary to directives, or that my public servants use ministerial mandates as toilet paper. No matter. When Millhaven management approves a PFV application, Millhaven employees up and down the line have no choice but to accommodate.

I was polite, compliant and respectful on November 9 when I had good reason not to be. But then, the VRB “visiting sanction” specified in your November 29 letter endorsed staff misconduct and discredited CSC’s public face. Given that, why would I make the effort to return to Millhaven, only to again risk interference by a conflicting agenda?

PFV’s are my sole available avenue to normalize a relationship with my son, and they are a priority. However, your insistence on listening only to your own counsel challenges prospects for future visits.

I’ll be weighing my options judiciously.

…..copied to Millhaven staffers, regional, national and senior Ottawa management. Responses?
Not likely.
And if necessary, more is waiting in the wings.

Bad law gets ditched……

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

……..ONE DOWN, HOW MANY MORE TO GO?

“A law that prompted a rare rebellion among judges has been declared cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore unconstitutional, by the Supreme Court of Canada.”

So began a Globe and Mail article under Sean Fine’s byline on Saturday, December 15 of last year. It followed a much earlier Globe editorial from April 22, “Time to ditch this bad law”, published when the Court was about to take up the question.

In 2013, the Conservative government under Stephen Harper made a previously discretionary “victim surcharge” mandatory. Introduced in the 1980s, judges could waive the automatic penalty imposed on offenders, but the Conservative tough-on-crime agenda did not permit exceptions.

The money was to go to victim services and the Harper government held that the $100 surcharge for each minor offence and $200 for each serious breach was aimed at making offenders more accountable.

According to Sean Fine, a decision released by the Supreme Count on December 14 said, “There was no accountability in trying to squeeze money from the very poor, the homeless and the addicted.” Phrases such as “grossly disproportionate,” “outrage to decency,” “abhorrent,” were sprinkled throughout the Court’s ruling.

The Liberals in opposition criticized the 2013 legislation, and later announced their intention to make changes when they formed a government. But action stalled and judges across the country began ignoring the law, or ordering surcharges as low as 30 cents, or giving offenders up to 99 years to pay.

A group of inmates challenged the law and the case wound its way eventually to the Supreme Court. This is only one of a series of setbacks against the Conservative agenda. As Sean Fine wrote on December 15, “Taken together, the Court’s crime rulings constitute clear boundaries for future governments tempted to push punishment at the expense of other sentencing goals.”

This common sense perspective impacts legislators and the courts, but scrutinizing our prison operations with the same set of eyes is long overdue.

What, no ‘carding’ comment?

turnoverarocktoday Policing

OKAY, BUT ONLY A FEW WORDS.

JUSTICE MICHAEL TULLOCH RELEASES HIS 300-PLUS PAGE REVIEW OF CARDING AND STREET CHECKS IN ONTARIO.

NOW WHAT?

Commissioned by the previous Ontario Liberal government, it’s now up to the current Progressive Conservative administration at Queen’s Park to do something with it. Tulloch’s extensive report is one of four critical perspectives into policing released during the last few weeks. After an initial flurry of attention, these voluminous, expensive, but usually worthwhile exercises frequently end up tucked away on a dusty shelf and forgotten.

Tulloch, an Ontario Court of Appeal justice, and his team consulted widely and accepted numerous written submissions, including representations from 34 police services in the province. Culling a bottom line from all those pages, random street checks….carding….have no investigative value, although done right and for the right reasons, targeted street checks are worthwhile. In spite of painstaking efforts in the report to flesh out the difference, considerable subjectivity remains. That’s the pitfall.

Sylvia Jones, the provincial minister responsible for policing today, said “new police legislation will reflect a simple principle: racism and discrimination have no place in policing. Justice Tulloch’s report will inform our work as we fix Ontario’s policing legislation.” We’ll see.

No matter what this government does with the information now in its hands, no matter what any government does, one overriding principle is paramount:-

We must have some understanding of the law and our rights within it. We must stand up for those rights, speak up for those rights, act up for those rights. We must outlaw infringements on those rights. Otherwise, we get the boot.

Just as a reminder…..”Carding is code for police state”

Now, let’s get back to Canada’s prison industry.….next time we dump a bad law.

Underground economy……

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

…..big business in the big house.

The notice reprinted in part here appeared last week on Correctional Service of Canada’s web site:-

On December 29, 2018, at about 12:15 p.m., as a result of the vigilance of staff members, a package containing contraband was seized in the medium security unit at Collins Bay Institution.

The contraband and unauthorized items seized included 2520 grams of tobacco, 244 grams of marijuana, 55.6 grams of crack-cocaine, mini cell phone and charger as well as drug and tobacco paraphernalia. The total estimated institutional value of this seizure is $85,000.

The medium security unit of Collins Bay Institution was placed on lockdown to allow staff to conduct a general search. The search was ordered to ensure the safety and security of the institution, its staff and inmates.

Visits to the medium security unit have been suspended until the search is completed.

The police have been notified and the institution is investigating.

Similar notices show up regularly.

)()(

For as long as men and women have been confined against their will, there have been other men and women moved by profit or loyalty to cater their needs. This commerce was tolerated for centuries in most cultures, and even encouraged as a benefit to keepers and their masters.

Today, in Europe, North America, and a few countries elsewhere, ‘contraband’ is condemned, judged contrary to good order, the law, and equitable opportunity for all in prison. But over the years, as practice and technology developed to stem illicit trade, and improvements and advancements countered the ingenuity of smugglers, one constant has remained. Getting goods past the barriers outweigh the risks.

The Collins Bay seizure in December was a major ‘bust’ but suggests too that traffickers must be successful some of the time if they’re willing to give up what was lost last month. That over five pounds of tobacco topped the list of what was confiscated points down a path where Correctional Service of Canada is at least partially responsible for the demand that drives the contest to supply an ‘underground economy’.

The community consents to limitations and restrictions on access to drugs and weapons, and damns criminal behaviour. Inmates in our prisons are understandably subject to the same prohibitions, and CSC’s interdictions should be expected. But, there are several examples that exacerbate prison living conditions where the agency could divert some attention away from contraband.

Two have previously been posted. “Please sir, I want some more.” on December 2, and “Now, how ‘bout money!” from December 15 infer that a satisfactory diet with sufficient food and a proper pay scale permitting offenders to meet their obligations won’t eliminate the black market but it’ll relieve some stress. So would a flood of relevant programming, additional yard and gym periods, and increased extra-cell time, as a start.

The tobacco ban now in place for ten years never made sense. A package of cigarettes selling for $10 in a corner store is worth $500 in prison, and that demand calls for an examination of the present policy. Taking tobacco away from a smoker does not make a non-smoker; it leaves a smoker without tobacco. We may accept a bar on smoking in enclosed spaces as a reasonable restriction, but there are open-area alternatives, and a range of cessation supports to boot. Without the same options in our prisons, the ban is counter-productive.

Perhaps Correctional Service of Canada simply enjoys the extra work. The underground economy will never go away, but it doesn’t have to be the battle it is.

)()(

“Offenders are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment.”
Dr. Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator of Canada
2017-2018 Annual Report, page 4.

Millhaven doesn’t respond……

turnoverarocktoday Comment

……it just trips along in a deep ditch.

Without adding observations, this is CSC’s November 29 letter:

SUSPENSION OF PFV’S & VISITING SANCTION AT MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION

Mr. Klassen

The Visitor Review Board met on Wednesday November 14, 2018 to discuss your Private Family Visits (PFV’s), as well as your Visiting Status, at Millhaven Institution with your stepson offender Brennan Guigue.

As you will recall, on November 9, 2018 you attended our institution for your first Private Family Visit together

During processing, there was a positive indication on one our Drug Screening Tools.

The Correctional Manager completed a Threat Risk Assessment (TRA), as per policy.
The Deputy Warden reviewed this Assessment, and the decision was made to deny this PFV.

Your stepson requested the opportunity to attend the next Visitor Review Board. He was given that opportunity on November 14, 2018.

The letter you submitted, in regards to this denied PFV, was presented, and read, at the Board on November 28, 2018. This letter has now been placed on offender Guigue’s visiting file.
The Visitor Review Board then reviewed any relevant information, including past or present history.

At this time, the Board has recommended Suspension your Private Family Visits.

As per policy, your stepson cannot re-apply for Private Family Visits until after May 14, 2018.
As well, your visits have been placed on a ‘Closed seating status for 60 (sixty) days’.

While on any form of a sanctioned seating status, you are not eligible for participation in any Family Gatherings, or Private Family Visits.

This sanction will stay in effect regardless of your stepson’s transfer out of Millhaven Institution.
This visiting status will be reviewed at the Visitor Review Board following January 14, 2018 (sic).

Any further questions can be directed to the Visitor Review Board at Millhaven Institution.
Offender Guigue has been advised of is right to grieve these decisions pursuant to CD 081 – Offender Complaints and Grievances.

Thank You

D. Payette
Correctional Manager
Visits & Correspondence
Millhaven Insitution
(613) 351-8168

The response contesting this VRB decision is prepared but its release is delayed pending a procedural matter. Originally scheduled for publication at the end of December, it’s now tentatively set to be mailed and published near the end of January.

Now, how ’bout money!

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

“Please sir, I want some more” from December 2 focused on food as the first of two examples where CSC keeps inmates “desperate and reckless”. Money is the second example referenced and very much interconnected with food.

We’ve talked about money before and we’ve talked about money more than once. Inmate pay in the federal prison system rates a SNL skit if reality wasn’t beyond credibility, and otherwise so painful for so many.

“Repetition is the mother of perfection,” according to Thomas Keller, Ryan Straten, and others, and we’ll go with that premise in hopes constant harping might bring about change. Sounds far-fetched, doesn’t it?

So, here we go again.

Briefly, a parliamentary committee established a pay-scale for offenders in federal institutions in 1980. It was based on the minimum wage at the time, reduced by allowances for room and board and other relevant expenses. That pay-scale has stayed in place for almost four decades…..with no increases, not even adjustments for inflation.

But, the costs of what inmates are expected to do with that money keep rising year by year, including the price of food to supplement the meagre diet in institutions. In 1980, milk was less than $2/gallon, bread 50 cents/loaf, bacon $1.75/pound, flour $1.00/5 pounds, ground beef $1.00/pound, peanut butter $1.50/jar, potatoes $1.00/5 pounds, pork and beans 40 cents/can, is just a sampling.

To throw salt on the wound, Stephen Harper (it figures) supported a 30% reduction in pay in 2013 and eliminated at least one category on the scale. The cut was to support room and board expenses….and to help cover the cost of the telephone service.

An inmate legal action against the cuts failed because the Court was not prepared to rule on “the wisdom of the policy decisions made by the government.” The court chose not to comment on the veracity of that wisdom.

Well, not only did a government committee previously decide inmates already paid for their telephone services, but Correctional Service of Canada gets a kickback from Bell Canada, a percentage of the telephone revenue collected from inmates.

To boot, the scale established in 1980 not only accounted for room and board, but if the government had done for inmates all along what it does for government employees by granting pay increases, it wouldn’t be necessary to take another chunk of inmate pay.

December 14, 2018

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

Re: Federal prison inmate wages and allowances

Dear Minister Goodale:

When Prime Minister Trudeau issued his mandate letter to Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould calling for a review of “the changes in our criminal justice system and sentencing reforms over the past decade,” it was expected and hoped Correctional Service of Canada policies would come under scrutiny.

After all this time, there hasn’t been a lot of movement. Oh yes, CSC is working to reconfigure its solitary confinement practices but that’s a result of civil actions against the Service, and not ministerial orders.

Of the areas in the federal prison system needing a closer look, financial allowances and wages for inmates is a priority. You know the present pay-scale was set in 1980. Not only have there been no increases in the last near forty years, but the Harper government supported a 30% cut and eliminated extra pay for work with CORCAN. Today, federal prisoners are expected to use 1980 dollars, reduced by 30%, to meet their needs at 2018 prices.

When would you think “slave labour” is a warranted designation?

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

cc: The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice

We’ll continue with other examples of government “wisdom” at the beginning of the New Year. Until then, the next two postings will update “A slap in the face; a pat on the back.”

Taking the field……..

turnoverarocktoday Justice for Brennan Guigue

……another pause in the prison series for an update.

…since the last posting on September 23/18

This writer enjoyed an opportunity to catch up with two former business associates at a recent social event. Both had retired at senior positions in their respective fields, and our mutual respect and admiration form a bond of friendship that transcends our less than frequent contacts.

Brennan Guigue’s action against Correctional Service of Canada intrigues them but each of these two men comes at it from a different perspective. For one, this is a matter of an inmate standing up to a corrupted system that too often abuses its power over men and women who face perceived credibility challenges on the one hand, and don’t have the resources to hold their captors to account on the other. The second of the two is baffled by a conundrum that has public servants acting against their oaths, their employer’s policy and rules, and even the law while apparently sheltered under an umbrella of impunity.

As concerning as this situation may be to them, they’re not motivated to do anything more than take a peek under that rock, comment with a shake of the head, and move on. That underscores the importance of Brennan Guigue’s action, a variance on “speaking truth to power.” Here is one person who is telling the government that it can’t do what it wants just because it can.

As a ‘by the way’, another access to information request this fall again asked CSC for the employment status of the guards involved in the July, 2014 assault. The guard who videotaped the event has left the Service, but the others are still working for the prison system. How many other inmates have they targeted in the last four years?

The March 12 inscription date in 2019 looks like a go, and Brennan and his lawyer are meeting with government lawyers early next year. The services of an expert witness are beginning to gel, and the pace is ramping up….slow and steady…. as the road ahead is focused on the resolution in the distance.

Moving forward. Always moving forward.

“Please sir, I want some more.”

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist is found in the street as an infant and put in a workhouse by the age of nine where he and other boys unravel old rope. In the workhouse Oliver is the victim of slow starvation, the diet consisting of three small bowlfuls of oatmeal gruel per day, an onion twice a week and a roll on Sunday. Under this regimen which reduces the boys to living skeletons, Oliver and his companions become voraciously hungry.
At last they hold a council and choose by lot one among them to ask the overseer for more gruel. The victim of the lottery is Oliver Twist. The time arrives, and ‘desperate with hunger and reckless with misery’, Oliver gets up from the table and walks slowly to the master, basin and spoon in hand…….
“Please, sir, I want some more.”
Oliver got nothing but trouble.

)()(

Pivot to the 21st century and our federal prisons today in this country, and to two examples of how Correctional Service of Canada keeps offenders “desperate with hunger and reckless with misery.” We’ll look at just one of those examples here.

FOOD: The previous federal government under Stephen Harper ordered ministerial across-the-board cost-cutting measures. Correctional Service of Canada followed suit, finding economies that would primarily impact inmates, whose concerns CSC need not consider or address.

Food was one target, and the Service initiated a “Cook Chill” process, bulk preparation, cooled and distributed to institutions for reconstitution and heating. Were there complaints about food quality and serving sizes? Absolutely. There still are. And worse, economies decreased spending to $5.41 per day per inmate, a 2600 daily caloric intake which is recommended for a low activity male, aged 31 – 50! Not as severe as Oliver’s three daily bowls of gruel but leaving inmates hungry all the same. And, not exactly the conditions conducive for offenders to be “well-prepared to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives” upon release.

“If you don’t have something going on the side, you’ll starve!”, said one source.

But wait. Prison inmates can purchase additional food from a canteen, although why they should have to do that just to supplement a poor diet is grounds for argument.

Hold it! Buying food from the canteen takes money. We’ll get to that next time.

A slap in the face: a pat on the back!

turnoverarocktoday Comment

This interruption in the prison series brought to you by staff at Millhaven Institution. The letter and notes reprinted here are self-explanatory. (Note – PFV – 3-day private family visit)

November 12, 2018

K. Lollar, Correctional Manager,
Millhaven Institution,
5775 Bath Road, P.O. Box 280,
Bath, ON K0H 1G0

Re: Representation to Visitor Review Board re November 9 PFV

Correctional Manager Lollar:

Now I know with certainty. I’ve become a victim, too. I’m not pleased, and don’t appreciate the unnecessary experience I had on November 9.

After more than thirty years of advocacy, I know not everyone at Correctional Service of Canada is on the same page. Internal adherence/support for policies and procedures can vary and fluctuate, regardless of the Service’s public face. That this can negatively impact members of the public and the offenders to whom they are connected is regrettable.

For the sake of brevity here, I’ve attached three pages of my personal notes from that morning when I attempted to check in for a PFV with my son, Brennan Guigue. That there are no steps to counter a CSC position is not acceptable in the face of the mandate to foster positive interaction between offenders and their families.

I was not bringing contraband into Millhaven. Period! I know that. The people in Ontario and Quebec who help me move around and live comfortably given my present circumstances support that.

I believe I deserve an explanation that goes beyond simply that the drug dog “indicated” on me, given there were prior multiple passes.

I want the names of the officer who checked my property and meds, and the officer who handled the drug dog.

I deserve consideration for the expenses incurred in making this trip, and for PFV supplies.

I would go so far as to suggest an apology from CSC is in order.

And, I have one final request from the Visitor Review Board. No matter the outcome of your deliberations, and as much as I want a PFV with my son, there is no point in approving my participation in this program without some assurance that every staff member with whom I come into contact is in agreement.

With that, I’ll leave you to your work.

Charles H. Klassen

cc: Crystal Thompson, Warden, Millhaven Institution
Deputy Warden, Millhaven Institution
SIO Department, Millhaven Institution
Sector Coordinator P. Osypchuck, V & C
Correctional Manager Mike Kirkwood
Deputy Commissioner – CSC Regional Headquarters – Ontario
Assistant Commissioner – Correctional Operations & Programs – NHQ
Brennan Guigue

)()(

November 11, 2018

MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION THREE-DAY PFV WITH BRENNAN GUIGUE

A summary of the morning of November 9, 2018 from c. 8:55am until c. 11:30am:-

My Kingston area hosts drove me to the Millhaven Institution reception building, arriving just prior to 9am.

I presented my passport to the officer who signed me in. She used my watch for the ion scan, gave me a lock and key, called V & C (I assumed) to say I’d arrived, and offered me a seat for the few minutes wait.
I put the cloth bag holding my document case containing papers I studied on the trip, along with wallet, cash/coin, keys, into the locker.
I then had only my passport and the key to the locker on my person.

A guard arrived from V & C a few minutes later with papers from Ms P. Osypchuck, Sector Coordinator for V & C, referencing an inspection of my ankle and knee braces. I moved property for the PFV from my suitcase to one from the institution. I removed my right shoe and Richie Brace and it was put through the scanner. The guard checked the knee brace. He inspected the prescription meds, and the suitcase was put through the scanner. The guard stowed my case in a tight-fitting unused locked, and I walked through the scanner and was cleared.

I followed him outside, dragging the suitcase behind me, and through the perimeter security fencing onto the prison grounds. He was ahead of me carrying the bag of medications.

An employee behind me lifted my case up the few steps to the V & C entrance. Once inside, I put it against the wall of the lobby, and the guard ushered me to a locked office a few feet away to the right and showed me the four small lockers where the meds would be stored. He explained the routine. He needed two lockers for my meds, and still had to put one item on a shelf.

We exited that office and my bag was laying flat on the floor against the wall of the lobby, open and awaiting inspection by the drug dog. The guard in charge of the dog positioned me, brought the dog from its kennel a few feet away and made the usual multi-sweep of me and my bag. The guard put the dog back in the kennel, asked me to stand with my back against the wall, and again brought out the dog. It reached up with one paw to just above my waist, dropped back to the floor, sniffed my right shoe and sat down.

Ms Osypchuck was watching at this point from her office door a few feet away. She told me the dog had “indicated” on me and a superior would have to be called. It was to take 10 to 15 minutes and she brought a chair out of her office for me.

Over the next while, staff members came and went through the entrance and the guard who had been my escort stayed for a time, but was eventually called away. The guard handling the dog left with the dog and returned alone a few minutes later and went into Officer Osypchuck’s office. I was told it was taking longer than expected to bring someone to the lobby but it would be only a few more minutes.

(I didn’t realize ‘til later but Correctional Manager K. Lollar in charge of this area was not available and another Correctional Manager was called.)

Correctional Manager Mike Kirkwood arrived, went into Ms Osypchuck’s office and closed the door. I could hear the conversation although not what was being discussed, but after a very few minutes, I did hear her say, “You can speak to him if you want.”

All this time, I had been sitting quietly in the lobby, observing the movement around me, but not interacting with anyone.

CM Kirkwood stepped out of the office, introduced himself and asked me to join them. Someone retrieved the chair I’d been using as it was needed. The dog-handler was bent over the desk completing a form which he handed to CM Kirkwood and then left.
CM Kirkland sat a few feet from me, shuffling papers in his hand. He looked at me and said something to the effect of, “can you tell me anything to explain what had happened.” I assured him I wasn’t bringing contraband into the institution, I couldn’t explain what had happened, and asked how I could show that was the case.

This briefly went back and forth, he referenced circumstances at Kingston Penitentiary many years prior, and also spoke about mail sent to Brennan Guigue which didn’t have a return address as a component of concern, along with what had just occurred with the dog. I told him I sent mail to Brennan weekly, always with a return address. In retrospect I should have pursued the matter of mail, and how it had anything to do with this day. The question of the dog and my right foot arose and Ms Osypchuck told him the brace had been checked at reception.

CM Kirkwood then said he had to speak with the warden and left. Ms. Osypchuck suggested I could stay where I was while she worked. Twenty minutes and more passed. There were short and mostly unrelated exchanges between Ms. Osypchuck and me, including a request for water which she accommodated. I did bring up how one counters the question at hand, and she said if I was referring to strip searches, in the 24 years she’d been with CSC, not once had a warden authorized the strip search of a visitor.

CM Kirkwood returned eventually, walking purposefully into the office, saying, “I have bad news.” He had conferred with the warden, deputy warden, I believe security was involved, and the decision was taken to cancel the PFV. My only interjection, the only one I could make, was to question how I could reassure them. I was more than a little surprised to be caught up in this.

I assume that if it was not for the drug dog, the next step would have been for the escort to supply razors to replace my electric razor before going to the PFV unit.
Also, Ms Osypchuck told me during an October 11 telephone conversation that the institution would supply a substitute for the Depends Guards I use at night.

CM Kirkwood asked Ms Osypchuck about groceries, which had apparently been delivered, and then asked if I could take them. I declined as that wasn’t possible. I was told I had five days to respond to what they were to give me. Ms Osypchuck indicated it was better to say something rather than nothing.

A ‘Letter To Visitor On “Positive Indication Using Non-Intrusive Search Tools”’ was prepared, and both CM Kirkwood and Ms Osypchuck escorted me to reception. Mr. Kirkwood dialed my hosts’ phone number so I was able to arrange for a pick up and he left. Ms Osypchuck added her name and number to the letter, suggesting I call her for an email address to use for my presentation. The groceries in four boxes were on the floor of reception, apparently to be donated to a food bank.

I was picked up shortly after, and left. It was about 11:30am.

How kind of Correctional Service of Canada to validate my work. That is this farce’s one takeaway .