…..you can’t hide.

“Et tu, Trudeau?” from May 21 included the contents of a letter to Justin Trudeau, encouraging him to move forward aggressively with his agenda for reforms to our justice and federal penal systems.

As always, we didn’t expect or anticipate a response. However, a May 25th letter arrived from the Prime Minister’s office over the signature of R. Olshansky, Executive Correspondence Officer:-

On behalf of the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of May 16, 2017, regarding solitary confinement.

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with the Prime Minister. You may be assured that your correspondence has been carefully reviewed.

As you may know, the issue you raise falls within the portfolios of the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I am certain that the Ministers, to whom you sent copies of your letter, appreciated being made aware of your views.

Once again, thank you for writing to the Prime Minister.

Oh now, that’s just too easy. Better not to have had an answer at all. It took only a moment to correct the PMO:-

June 7, 2017

R. Olshansky, Executive Correspondence Officer,
Office of the Prime Minister,

Re: Not so fast.

Dear R. Olshansky:

I didn’t expect the Prime Minister to answer my May 16 letter around the use of solitary confinement in our federal prisons, and I thank you for your May 25 response on his behalf.

Sorry, but I take issue with your perspective. “The buck stops here”, said a sign sitting on Harry Truman’s desk, and that same axiom applies to Justin Trudeau. If Ministers Wilson-Raybould and Goodale do not deliver on the goals the Prime Minister has set for his government’s reforms, it is the Prime Minister who will answer for his ministers.

It is of paramount importance that changes to policy and practice be enshrined in legislation, no matter the howls of objection from some quarters. After all, it is we, the people, who must be satisfied.

Thank you for the attention you have already given this; it need not take up more of your time.

Yes, and Ministers Wilson-Raybould & Goodale were copied.

……..or is optimism wasted?

From last week, “By early May, with Howard Sapers preliminary report in hand, the government announced reforms for solitary confinement, and an ‘overhaul’ of its jails”

Just so, Patrick White’s “Ontario jails to be overhauled, minister says” from the May 25th Globe and Mail began by saying that, “The minister in charge….determined to make the province an international model for humane correctional practices……” Minister Lalonde said Howard Sapers initial report released two weeks prior was “fair”, and she promised to “tackle” and “address” each of his 63 recommendations.

The Globe article continued, “She refused to say whether addressing the recommendations would be analogous to implementing them”, but said she would be introducing new legislation this fall to reflect those recommended changes. That’s a tall order; Mr. White reminded us that current laws have gone untouched since the nineties.

A long, two-page April 26th letter arrived from Minister Marie-France Lalonde, responding to four of ours from last fall, winter, and into 2017. As could be expected, it reviewed the changes and improvements that have been implemented and are upcoming in Ontario’s institutions, committing further to work with the Ombudsman’s report and the Howard Sapers review.

The minister’s confidence led her to stumble with two paragraphs deep into this letter about the Toronto South Detention Centre, by writing, “….the ministry is proud to have opened this modern, state-of-the-art detention centre……” and went on to herald what she and her staff believe are the considerable assets of TSDC. The minister forgot she wasn’t writing a grade-school class.

Of course, a response was warranted:-

May 29, 2017

The Honourable Marie-France Lalonde,
Minister of Community Safety & Correctional Services,
18th Floor, George Drew Building,
25 Grosvenor Street,
Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6

Re: Bury the truth; hide the facts

Dear Minister:

Thank you for your April 25th letter in response to four of mine from 2016 and 2017. Ministry staff may be responsible for its composition, but your signature endorses the contents.

The remarks around Toronto South Detention Centre are troublesome. Only last week I had yet another call from a TSDC inmate to say he was denied a copy of Raizel Robin’s Toronto Life March cover article, “The $1-billion hellhole” that I sent him. In my experience, inmates at other provincial institutions have not had the same problem with their mail. Criminal defense lawyers and social workers familiar with TSDC would have preferred that the Toronto Life article reflected the full scope of Ms. Robin’s research, but assumed the magazine would only publish a balanced perspective.

The facts contest your ministry’s pride in Toronto South. The institution discounts inmate discord because of its source, and lawyers know complaints they have can compromise their ability to connect with clients. Simply, the MCSCS public position is not supportable under scrutiny.

In any case, with Howard Sapers’ interim report in hand, you announced a new vision for Ontario’s jails, focused primarily but not exclusively on the use of solitary confinement. Progress is welcome but you’ll be challenged to legislate changes on the one hand, and guarantee compliance on the other. Judgements will have to await outcomes.

I wish you good luck.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

cc: Mike Wasylyk, Superintendent, Toronto South Detention Centre

And, she is wished the best of luck. Let’s see where this goes.

“Researchers believe it damages the body and brain as well, but they can’t test this hypothesis, because what we do to prisoners every day – house them in prolonged isolation – is illegal to do to laboratory animals. It is against the law to treat rats the way we treat people in solitary.”
…….from “Buried alive – stories from inside solitary confinement”, by Dan Winters
GQ Magazine, March 2017

This feature in GQ examples the extremes of segregation practices in some American prisons, but the principle Dan Winters espouses has a place everywhere prisoners are isolated for more than 22 hours a day over periods of more than two weeks. Even then, or when a segregation placement is frequent, the mental and physical outcomes can be damaging.

We’ve already looked at the challenges confronting federal segregation (Segregation – a federal snapshot, March 5 and March 12, for instance), but our provinces and territories are facing similar scrutiny. Intransigent Manitoba stands out in its support for the status quo, but what is needed in Winnipeg are the same levels of activism that is leading to reviews of solitary confinement elsewhere in the country. British Columbia in particular has made a commitment to progressive change.

The assault on Ontario’s segregation policies in its jails has been led by Patrick White at Toronto’s Globe and Mail. Mr. White, with the support of the paper’s editorial board, is not alone in condemning solitary confinement, but their work was instrumental in bringing the issue to the forefront. From “Solitary confinement review accomplishes little, critics say” on October 18, to “High ratio of isolated inmates have mental-health issues” the next day, along with an editorial also on the 19th criticizing the ministry’s delay in dealing with a problem of its own making, the spotlight is persistent.

On through the fall, with some considerable input from the Toronto Star, the government was pressed to do something. Patrick White reported on November 9 that Ontario had enlisted the help of Howard Sapers, former Correctional Investigator for Canada, to review conditions in the province’s jails. A November 11 Globe editorial encouraged Mr. Sapers to “speak truth to power,” a habit for which he’s noted.

By late November, the minister responsible at least acknowledged the matter of segregation deserved attention, but critics continued to accuse Ontario of indifference and ignoring calls for reform. By December, even the provinces ombudsman announced his intention to look at what was described as the ‘torture’ of inmates by Ontario. The Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services announced it would ‘tackle’ inmates’ mental health and segregation, admitting there were ‘serious problems’ with segregation.

In April of this year, Ontario’s ombudsman released his findings, saying Ontario’s segregation practices were ‘unacceptable’. A Globe editorial did not mince words, calling on the province to define segregation, document it, reform it, and end it. And then, the lawsuits began. By early May, with Howard Sapers preliminary report in hand, the government announced reforms for solitary confinement, and an ‘overhaul’ of its jails.

In recognition of his work, Patrick White won a National Newspaper Award in the spring in the beat reporting category for his coverage of federal and provincial prisons.

It’s worth noting that ‘policies’ can become simple guidelines, subject to the whims and vagaries of OPSEU members who work as guards in the province’s institutions. These too came under the media’s probing, with numerous articles beginning last fall and through the winter. Whatever the outcome of all this, it’s important that reforms be enshrined in legislation. Otherwise, they can become mere suggestions.

Remember this, too. Nowhere in this country does a custodial sentence in response to a criminal act permit the mistreatment of a human being, physically or mentally. More, that is specifically prohibited in both provincial and federal jurisdictions. All the same, it not only can be a common occurrence, but our governments tend to claim immunity from the acts and consequences for which their employees may be responsible. To boot, these our governments use your tax dollars to defend the indefensible.

…..and the perpetrators have not been charged!

Referencing the posting on Matthew Hines from October 2 of last year (Matthew Hines died. Chapter the second), a use-of-force incident at Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick ended with the death of an inmate with a history of mental illness.

“In this case, everything that could go wrong in a use-of-force intervention went wrong,” is how Canada’s new Correctional Investigator Ivan Zinger summed up his May 2nd report. The Toronto Globe and Mail’s Patrick White added in his “Ombudsman report slams N.B. prison for inmate’s death”, that the report’s conclusion “is damning and far-reaching: Correctional Service Canada (CSC) failed Mr. Hines, his family and the public from the moment officers tackled him that night (May 25, 2015) on through to misleading public explanations and, finally to an absence of accountability for a ‘preventable’ death.”

The New Brunswick coroner finally released his report, after lengthy stalls, and concluded the 33-year-old died from acute asphyxia due to pulmonary edema, a condition caused by excess fluid in the lungs. The family was initially told that he died of a seizure.

How did this happen? Correctional Service Canada employees….guards…. repeatedly pepper-sprayed the inmate directly in the face and at close range, not only without apparent cause, but contrary to CSC policy and against the manufacturer’s recommendations. These same guards had earlier viciously and unnecessarily beat this man bloody. What’s more, an institutional duty nurse, arriving on the scene of an inmate in distress and not moving, didn’t even check the man’s vital signs. The Correctional Investigator found 21 legal and policy violations, seven of them major, listing failures and violations that would certainly result with criminal charges in any other setting.

So, what has happened? According to CSC, one person was fired and three others were disciplined, whatever that means………CSC isn’t talking. And, as the ombudsman questioned, no senior management was held accountable after an internal investigation.

Yes, the RCMP reopened its investigation after the details of this incident came to public attention, but months later there is still no word on its findings.

Makes one proud, doesn’t it?

And, as we wrote back in October, Matthew Hines two sisters have hired a lawyer.

……continues from May 21.

Our civil service is an important and crucial component in developing and executing the programs and policies laid out through the democratic legislative process our politicians have promised to deliver. As cumbersome as it often appears to be, its role is a fundamental necessity, and any criticism must be tempered with the gratitude it and our public servants are owed.

Why then does the work of governing a country like Canada most often move at such a glacial pace, and more, that outcomes are so frequently not what we want, expect and anticipate? Our politicians themselves are sometimes baffled by the difference between where they began with a proposition and what resulted at the end of the process.

On the one hand, Mr. Trudeau and his ministers are purposed to institute programs they believe are necessary and in the best public interest. On the other, the bureaucrats and mandarins who surround these elected representatives and people their staff, and have been a part of the civil service under different governments, know they will outlast current fashion. They have answered to other masters in the past and will be responsible to still more in the future. Their perspectives and priorities and biases may differ from the government of the day. What to do? What to do?

Within a set of parameters, the civil service is a power onto itself, a government within a government, ruled by dynamics and protocols developed over time to manage what it sees as the true calling of men and women dedicated to efficient governance. We’ll example the Minister of Public Safety, and the quandary around reforming the use of solitary confinement in our federal prisons.

Ralph Goodale tells Toronto’s Globe and Mail in its May 9th article, “Ottawa fails to act in time to stop lawsuit on segregation”, that the government is not stonewalling on segregation reform and is “hard at work at the various options that could serve to achieve the objective.” He further says legislation “may well be” part of the plan. Meanwhile, supporters of change have argued all along that legislation is the only path to reform, after years of recommendations by any number of sources that have been shunted aside.

A cabinet minister’s resources are under constant stress and in great demand. Mr. Goodale’s principal private secretary organizes his schedule, taking numerous priorities into account, often conflicting with the minister’s personal agenda. It is up to the PPS to keep his minister safely busy and away from interfering with the smooth operation of the department under the minister’s jurisdiction.

Mr. Goodale’s permanent secretary, the senior civil servant in his office, will meet at least daily with him when the House is in session, and perhaps occasionally when it is not, to review current agenda items, update their status, and make the recommendations ministry staff have determined will offer the best outcomes for the primary stakeholders……the civil service and the government.

Mr. Goodale will tell his staff what’s on his mind and the directions he’d like to take. He will always be encouraged to be forthright, and complimented on his insight. His permanent secretary will take the minister’s comments under advisement, tell him a committee will be struck to consider the question and report back in 90 days…..or so. What comes back will weigh every conceivable consideration, particularly if red flags are raised, and cautions advised.

Of course the minister is able to convene his own committees to study particular actions, exercise executive authority, and dictate his wishes. That, however, almost never happens. His senior staff will remind him that arbitrary decisions are ‘courageous’, something no ambitious or seasoned politician wants to hear.

The last thing the Ministry of Public Safety wants is a legislated solitary confinement policy. Law can take control out of the hands of people who abhor any infringements into their domains. It will take ‘courageous’ and determined politicians to change that. They need to be encouraged.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the John Howard Society were scheduled to be in court on January 3rd of this year to begin the first ever comprehensive challenge of solitary confinement practices in federal prisons. As their literature put it, “International bodies and experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, have been unwilling to mince words. Solitary by any other name is still torture.”

In the middle of December last year, a judge postponed the start of the case until July 4 due to a “reasonable expectation” that federal legislation will be enacted. BCCLA and John Howard will continue to prepare their case to ensure proposed reforms meet the expected standards.

This excerpt from the March 5th post, “Segregation – a federal snapshot”, is relevant to a Toronto Globe and Mail item published last week in its May 9 edition. A letter to Justin Trudeau voices the concern………….

May 16, 2017

Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,
Office of the Prime Minister,
80 Wellington Street,
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Re: Ashley Smith inquest recommendations

Dear Prime Minister:

Your letter to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould in 2015 instructed the minister to implement changes to the prison system as recommended by the Ashley Smith inquest. This included the scrutiny of Correctional Service Canada solitary confinement policies.

Justice Peter Leask of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled on May 8 that a suit by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the John Howard Society first brought in January of 2015 can proceed, as no legislation to reform segregation has appeared. This action, which claims solitary confinement violates Charter rights, was originally scheduled to begin in January of this year. The trial was delayed until July when your government applied for an adjournment, arguing new legislation would address the issue.

Do not let yourself or members of your government be cowed, obstructed and delayed by CSC management or UCCO-SACC-CSN(*) members. Correctional Service has had more than sufficient time to do right, and do it without government prodding. Expediency and efficiency demands Don Head and his subordinates at 340 Laurier Avenue West(*) be swept away, and replaced by progressive revisionists in some European and African countries.

You have both the mandate and the power to do just that.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

cc Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
Honourable Ralph Goodale

(*)UCCO-SACC-CSN is the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, representing prison guards, and 340 Laurier Avenue West is the Ottawa address of the National Headquarters of Correctional Service Canada.

The Globe’s May 9th “Ottawa fails to act in time to stop lawsuit on segregation” is an ideal example of how well-intentioned objectives are subverted by opposing agendas.

Are the prime minister and his cabinet falling prey to the same tactics that have thwarted government innovators since the dawn of democracy?

We’ll examine how this works next time……

So said a nurse to an inmate a few years ago at the now-closed Toronto West Detention Centre.

There isn’t a provincial or federal jurisdiction in this country that would not tell us millions of dollars are spent every year on health-care needs in our jails and prisons. Tending to the physical and mental health of offenders is a top priority in the penal systems, and every option is explored to ensure timely resolutions as conditions dictate.

Why then is health-care the most consistent source of inmate complaints across the country?

Millions, no, tens of millions are spent annually to provide medical services in our institutions. Not long ago, Ralph Goodale, the federal minister responsible for Correctional Service of Canada, noted that $77-million was earmarked for mental health services in the federal system alone. Lots of our money is spent, but where are the benefits?

A point we can’t overlook is the difference between how we in the community access medical attention, and how prison inmates look for help. We have doctors and dentists to call, walk-in clinics, trauma centres, and 24-hour-a-day help lines. Generally, the more urgent the need, the faster the service. Even the pesky toothache can be dealt within 24 hours, or less.

Inmates, on the other hand, are put on lists for medical attention, fill out forms, and look for help by speaking to nurses during daily rounds. Unless in an emergency, meaning a critical and potentially fatal circumstance where outside intervention is necessary, inmates wait. And they wait. And they wait. It’s not unusual for that wait to continue for weeks and even months. To quote from Daz Dreisinger’s “Incarceration Nations”, “….knowing the circumstances of your oppression and being powerless to do anything about it—that’s torture.” Ergo, more complaints.

Yet, no prison/jail official will easily admit to failures in providing “timely resolutions.” All the same, examples proliferate. There’s the inmate in British Columbia whose lawyer took Correctional Service of Canada to court to force treatment and surgery for a cancer. Then, there’s the prisoner in Kingston Penitentiary a few years ago who waited seven months to see a dentist. Or, Mary Dwyer, head of health care in Ontario’s Toronto South Detention Centre, who testified at a legal action two years ago that she had never heard of any problems with the delivery of care at TSDC, and hadn’t read any newspaper reports to the contrary, but insisted that newspapers are not accurate in any case (a real Trumpist assertion, that).

As a rule, the incarcerated have higher rates of ill-health than the general population and therefore place a greater demand on available resources. Mental and emotional health issues affect a high percentage of inmates, and while medications are available and prescribed, counselling services are almost non-existent. Band-aids for symptoms are only the first step towards addressing mental illness and emotional stressors.

Until recently in Canada, the health-related needs of offenders were administered by the ministries responsible for the operation of our penal institutions, rather than our health ministries. “To suggest correctional authorities should provide health care is like saying plumbers should do your electrical work”, is how Ruth Elwood Martin, a family doctor and clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, put it.

This also means, among other things, that the cost of health care in our jails and prisons is a budget line, subject to what controls are necessary to keep costs in line. And, keeping costs in line affects management performance bonuses. So, health care for prisoners is dictated more by what resources are available rather than what resources are needed.

Times are beginning to change though. Alberta and Nova Scotia recently placed prison medical care under their health ministries. British Columbia will join them on October 1st of this year. Howard Sapers, the former federal prison ombudsman, and now reporting to Ontario on changes to its segregation policies, suggested Ontario do the same in the province’s institutions. Correctional Service of Canada has been encouraged for years to partner health care with the provincial systems.

The college of Family Physicians of Canada released a position statement in March asking Ottawa, the provinces and territories to act as B.C., Alberta and Nova Scotia have. In 2003, the World Health Organization called on nations to follow the lead of Norway, Britain and France, and deliver inmate health care through their respective ministries of health.

Jurisdictions that have made the switch report lower recidivism, improved file-sharing, greater participation in studies, more robust statistical monitoring and better treatment of TB, HIV, hepatitis C, and STDs.

Why should we care about this? No, why should we insist on change? A better response to the physical and mental health needs of the incarcerated translates into lower crime rates, and lower costs overall. Remember, these men and women in our institutions will one day return to the community.

This is a win-win issue!