…..AT CANADA….AGAIN?

“In this year’s Annual Report, a higher than usual number of my recommendations are directed to the Minister of Public Safety rather than the Correctional Service of Canada.  This is deliberate and consistent with section 180 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), which directs that I shall provide notice and report to the Minister of Public Safety whenever the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) does not, within a reasonable time, take adequate or appropriate action to address findings and recommendations of my Office.”

This is from Correctional Investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger’s opening message in his latest Annual Report, 2022-2023.  His simmering frustration is couched in the diplomacy expected of a senior civil servant, although plain-spoken language would be warranted given the long list of grievances CSC has summarily dismissed.

On that list is what was presumed to be one resolved finding in Dr. Zinger’s 2019–2020 Annual Report: namely, a revision to Commissioner’s Directive 022 – Media Relations.  We’ve followed its meandering course to nowhere with a keen interest for over three years.

The Eiffel Tower opened in 1889, built in just 2 years, 2 months, and 5 days, considered record time and a technological feat in its day. Toronto’s CN Tower was completed in 40 months.  To date, 4 years, 4 months, and about 25 days have passed and still no new media relations policy.  Can this delay be anything other than intentionally obstructive?

April 15, 2024

Dr. Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator,
The Office of the Correctional Investigator,
P.O. Box 3421, Station “D”,
Ottawa, ON  K1P 6L4

Re:      Commissioner’s Directive CD 022 Media Relations

Dear Dr. Zinger:

Okay, so now what?

You and CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly met in late November 2019, to discuss your concerns with CD 022 as it related to inmate/media contacts, and then exchanged letters confirming the need for a rewrite.  Ms. Kelly noted in her February 24, 2020, letter to you that “a revision of CD 022 is currently underway,” and she expected the update would be available by June 2020.

Where is it?

There is a February 8, 2023, draft for review. I have a May 4, 2023, letter from CSC Assistant Commissioner Kirstan Gagnon that ends with, “We are now doing consultation on the CD with our executive committee, which is one of the last steps in the process.  Once we have incorporated any final input, the new CD will be approved by CSC’s Commissioner and promulgated.”

Four years and more for just one policy reform?

There must come a point where a federal government agency, namely Correctional Service of Canada in this instance, can be considered delinquent by continuing to enforce a murky grey policy that is or may be in part “unreasonable, irrelevant or not founded in law,” as you wrote in your 2019-2020 Annual Report, and “may be in violation of recognized democratic principles and constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

“The wider public has a right to be informed of what goes on behind prison walls.”

Well, does it, or doesn’t it?

Commissioner Kelly was copied.  So too was Senator Kim Pate, the public safety minister and deputy minister, the justice minister and deputy minister, an assistant CSC commissioner and deputy commissioner.
This posting will also be sent to same, plus the 36 remaining current cabinet members.

For Ivan Zinger, good luck dealing with the minister.

CSC accountable?  Don’t think so.  CSC transparent?  Don’t think so.

A BRIEF COMMENT……

Federal Conservative Party principles are more aligned with the affluent, but conservatives know they must attract working class voters to succeed at the polls.  Their tool chest’s principal “go-negative drill” and “crime spanner” appeal to the politico-lite proletariat, and so we hear that everything in the country is wrong and getting worse while crime flourishes in our neighbourhoods.

For the purposes here, we leave what is wrong or right in Canada to others, but the Conservative response to crime is rooted in the Dark Ages.  The concerning rhetoric to wrench up the fear of crime on our streets while advocating the warehousing of the criminally bent within the walls of prison industry institutions is no solution to what troubles us.  CSC’s failed mandate is of no consequence to Conservative ideology.   Progressive policies aimed at improving outcomes are of no interest.  Getting votes by stoking people’s fear is the intent, and using the public’s innocent ignorance of prison realities is an advantage.

During the almost 10 years of Conservative government under Stephen Harper, a number of politically motivated retaliatory measures in the guise of tough-on-crime reforms recalling a regressive 19^th century mindset did not withstand the test of legal challenges.  But making communities safer was never the objective; votes were the target.  Even now, there are bits and pieces of leftover Harper-inspired detritus still negatively impacting prison industry conditions.

Doug Ford’s Ontario Conservative government insists it will appoint “like-minded” judges to the provincial bench, even though that will further backlog appellate courts.  It’s seen as a vote-getter, outcomes be damned.  Likewise, the federal party’s agenda won’t give up on criminals and prison inmates as easy fodder for its election platforms, and yes, outcomes be damned.  One recent example was a private member’s bill sponsored by Conservative Public Safety and National Security “shadow minister” Pierre Paul-Hus.  Bill C-325 was a short punitive amendment to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.  It was defeated at 2^nd reading on October 18^th last year.

This party’s prison politics calls for constant comment:-

 March 19, 2024

Pierre Paul-Hus, MP,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Re:      Tough on crime?

MP Paul-Hus:

“Only Conservatives will keep violent criminals off our streets and bring home safe streets again.  It’s just common sense.” October 16, 2023

Just politics, Mr. Paul-Hus.  Hardly common sense. 

Even now, people who commit serious crimes are warehoused by our federal prison industry in Correctional Service of Canada’s institutions, released back into the community in due time, often worse off than when they were convicted.  Commissioner Anne Kelly trumpets rehabilitative programming and mental health/drug addiction treatments that are half wishful thinking and half b.s.  Limited and restrictive resources benefit few inmates.

All the while, Conservative ‘policies’ are vengefully archaic, subject to censure and court challenges.

How about smart on crime?  Rebuild that prison industry from the ground up so it is more than simply a payroll office for over 20,000 public servants.  More importantly, make streets safer by prioritizing social program spending.

Otherwise, you’re simply a part of Conservative medievalism.

Several Conservative MPs who commented on the merits of this proposed bill were copied, including Pierre Poilievre, Andrew Scheer, Dan Lloyd, Frank Caputo, Michael Cooper, and Chris Warkentin.

It’s sad.  Public figures using the vulnerabilities of who they see as society’s dregs to advance a twisted priority.

KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS.
Donald Rumsfeld answered a question in 2002 with, “…..there are known knowns; these are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
Psychoanalytic philosopher Slavoj Zizek added a fourth category, the unknown knowns, that which one intentionally refuses to acknowledge that one knows.

Correctional Service of Canada’s Anne Kelly sends “Messages from the Commissioner” to employees, stakeholders, volunteers, and almost weekly to “offenders and their families.”  Often, offenders are offended.  Her November 14^th message lauding Nurse Practitioners Week drew a negative health care assessment from us on behalf of annoyed inmates.  Our November 30 letter to her was referenced in the December 3^rd posting, “OPCAT! OPCAT! OPCAT!”

Commissioner Kelly wrote back on February 5^th this year to defend the work of “the health services teams,” as would be expected, and then she writes that, “CSC abides by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and provides health services through health professionals that are consistent with professionally accepted standards.  Commissioner’s Directive 800: Health Services outlines that inmates should be provided with efficient and effective health services.  CSC’s health care professionals provide services which respect professional code of ethics, provide patient-centred care, patient advocacy, and promotes decision-making that is based on the appropriate medical, dental, and mental health care criteria.”

Does Ms. Kelly know what she wrote is at least 50% wishful thinking?  And we do know we are only one among thousands who do know that.

As a leading failed example, the criminality of a large number of incarcerated men and women is rooted in addictions, often as a result of PTSD from childhood trauma, along with other mental health disorders.  Correctional Service of Canada published “Guidance on Opioid Use Disorder (OAT) Program: August 16, 2021”, as a 24-page blueprint for the effective practice of an Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) for OUD, which is considered a chronic medical condition.

Yes, inmates on OAT are maintained on suboxone or methadone, but that in itself only supports the status quo.  It does nothing to address the cause/causes of addictions, a necessity to facilitate a safer reintegration into the community and reduce the rates of recidivism.  That is the role of the prescribed Treatment Teams, made up of nurses, doctors, mental health providers, and all involved in the inmate patient’s care.  The Guide is a worthy and extensive venture to restore broken lives for the betterment of us all; it’s available on-line.

“There is no such thing,” said one inmate.  Inmate after inmate has never seen a “team.”

Does Commissioner Kelly know that?

March 11, 2024

Anne Kelly, Commissioner,
Correctional Service of Canada,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0P9

Dear Commissioner Kelly:

“You can be assured that all members of the health services teams continue to work together to provide the best care to all patients.”  This is the close to your February 5, 2024, letter.  Generally, I agree.  CSC spends millions each year on prison health care and many inmates do benefit. 

The operative word here is “patients,” unfortunately.   Many inmates are not patients due to limited CSC resources or are subject to policy irregularities where needs are ignored, or treatment is cursory, incomplete, or suspended.  CSC institutions, regional offices and the national headquarters continuously contend with health care grievances, and the Office of the Correctional Investigator brings health care deficiencies to your attention annually.

I’ll cite one serious negligence.  Reference Correctional Service of Canada “Guidance on Opioid Use Disorder (OAT) Program: August 16, 2021,” which reads in part on page 3, “Effective OAT (Opioid Agonist Treatment) incorporates physical and mental health care and harm reduction delivered in an integrated fashion (not provided sequentially).  For example, care includes counselling, substance use monitoring, provision of comprehensive primary care, harm reduction, and assessment of emotional and mental health, and offering of psychosocial treatment interventions and supports.”

You know that the criminality of many offenders in your charge is rooted in drug addictions and mental health issues.  The options on page 3 are repeated at other points in the guide and yet, where are they for the men and women who line up each morning for their suboxone or methadone doses?  Ask those men and women.  Ask Dr. Zinger.

CSC’s toe-the-line response is to insist inmates get the health care they need.  Ma’am, this is simply not true.  Too bad for us.

 

Commissioner Kelly, what do you really know?

Next posting is April 7.

Bill C-83 was introduced in the House of Commons on October 16, 2018.  Its purpose was to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and one other Act, impacting several federal prison industry practices.  Most importantly, it would end administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation, replacing them with structured intervention units (SIUs), along with establishing a process for reviewing decisions to confine an inmate in them.  After the first two readings and a study by the House Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security which resulted in several amendments, the bill passed third reading on March 18, 2019.

The bill then went to the Senate where it received first reading on March 19, 2019.  After its second reading, it moved to a Senate committee that made 11 amendments which the Senate adopted, and the bill was approved and returned to the House on June 12.  The Commons considered the Senate amendments, rejecting most, and Bill C-83 became law on June 21, 2019.

Bill C-83 did not end the use of segregation, and the government’s own data shows that SIUs can replicate conditions of segregation and solitary confinement where the new provisions are not executed uniformly and where periods of isolation have stretched from sixteen to hundreds of days.  The Correctional Investigator found that conditions of segregation have expanded outside SIUs to units listed as medical observation and voluntary limited association ranges.  There is also a scope of options not covered by C-83, referred to as secure units, therapeutic units, maximum security, dry cells, and what the Correctional Investigator refers to as “hidden cells,” some label as “ghost cells.”

)()(

Kim Pate was appointed to the Senate of Canada and assumed office on November 10, 2016.  She is an alumnus of the University of Victoria and Dalhousie Law School, with post graduate work in forensic mental health, is a 2011 recipient of a Governor General’s Award, a member of the Order of Canada since 2014, and was formerly the executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.  She is a Senator for Ontario, sits with the Independent Senators Group (ISG) and has a special interest in matters of criminal justice and our carceral system.

On December 2, 2021, Senator Pate announced the introduction of Bill S-230 “to require judicial oversight of Correctional Services of Canada decision-making, prevent and remedy conditions of cruel and unusual punishment and torture in Canadian prisons.”  The bill encompasses the amendments that the Senate made to Bill C-83 in 2019 but which the government rejected.  Bill S-230 would require a court approval to keep an individual in isolation for longer than 48 hours.  It would also give inmates with mental health disabilities access to community-based care as opposed to isolation in medical observation or other pseudonyms for segregation.  The bill asks too for additional aggressive release options for Indigenous and Black offenders. 

Bill S-230 has been in committee since November 30 of last year after passing two readings.  The committee heard from 26 witnesses in five meetings up to February 8, and is now going through a clause-by-clause consideration.  If the resulting report is accepted and the Senate passes the bill on third reading, it will be sent to the House where it will almost certainly be summarily rejected.

We commented to the committee chair on February 22:

The Honourable Senator Brent Cotter,
The Senate of Canada Building,
Ottawa, ON  K1N 8X5

Re:      Bill S-230:  An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act

Dear Senator Cotter:

As Chair of the Senate of Canada Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, you’ve had six meetings to consider S-230. 

I will limit myself to just three comments.

First, I take exception to Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu’s December 14, 2023, view that, “Having visited federal penitentiaries in Quebec, I can tell you that offenders in these units are treated very well, often better than in a public hospital.  That’s my observation.”

Just exactly where did he make these observations?  Did the senator know at the time of his visits that Quebec Superior Court Justice Christian Immer’s July 28 decision authorized a class action lawsuit on behalf of federal prisoners in Quebec over the use of SIUs?

Unfortunately, Senator Boisvenu retired in February and can’t be challenged.

Further, CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly testified on the same date that there are no “hidden cells” in CSC prisons.  They’re sometimes labelled as “ghost cell’s” and they certainly do exist.  I wouldn’t suggest Ms. Kelly was being untruthful, but I would argue she doesn’t know what goes on in the facilities in her charge.

Lastly, while many notable people have appeared before the Committee, an important omission are the voices of inmates, the men and women who live the SIU experience.  Testimony within the walls of prisons chosen by the Committee is a necessary component for your consideration.

Senator Pate, CSC Commissioner Kelly, and Correctional Investigator Zinger were copied.

Bill C-230 is another reminder that all is not well in paradise.  Where is OPCAT?

…..COUNTERS CSC’S MANDATE “to contribute to public safety by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens…..”

“The third form of language discrimination is prison system wide.  Misinformation and disinformation often contaminate inmate files.  The former may be unintentional due to miscommunication, but the latter is always deliberate and calculated, meant to discredit an inmate to meet a Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) generated narrative.”

That is from the December 17, 2023, “Let’s talk prison language discrimination,” which targeted Quebec federal prison practices.  Last August, a Quebec Superior Court judge authorized a class-action lawsuit on behalf of federal prisoners in Quebec over the excessive use of segregation units in the province’s federal institutions.  Yes, segregation.  CSC management were fully aware of this conduct and did nothing.

Likewise, the remedy for the language discrimination spotlit on December 17 must come through the courts.  CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly has shown no interest in enforcing anti-discrimination policies, and while financial penalties at taxpayers’ expense will not eliminate the insidious nature of this discrimination, a court finding of liability is one more censure of Canada’s prison industry.

Also from December 17, “Rectifying errors and fabrications first involve using the tools available through CSC, the grievance/complaints process, along with application for file changes.  It will easily take a year or more to exhaust these avenues, and almost universally will not succeed.  The next move is to seek remedy in federal court, not necessarily an easy route to a win.  And, if the court does decide in an inmate’s favour, there is still the matter of CSC’s compliance.  Redress if changes are not met or don’t fully satisfy the court’s decision means going after the government again.”

Allen Tehrankari’s application before the federal court for relief from Correctional Service of Canada’s refusal to correct his file information was decided in his favour by Ottawa Justice Francois Lemieux in a disposition dated April 13, 2000 (Docket T-1662-98).  That this is often cited as a standard makes the case that actions like these seldom get far.

People of a certain age will remember the days when computer technology in the business community was in its infancy, and it was expected and assumed that stored information was accurate.  That was one of the trumpeted advantages to data processors.  Data input did not easily accommodate human blunders though.  There was and always has been errors in computer files, but it was not uncommon in those early days to be told that “it’s in the computer so it must be right” if someone disadvantaged by faulty specifics tried to correct their bank records, health file information, legal obligations, or whatever inconveniences negatively impacted their lives.  Worse, corrections seemed to be anywhere from laborious to impossible even when a mistake was acknowledged.

Correctional Service of Canada’s Offender Management System is CSC’s “mission critical system, used to manage information about offenders under its care and ensure their safe reintegration into society.”  The status this process is given commands that what is in its files is accurate, reliable, and thorough.  Errors are destabilizing.  Mistakes question the point of the system.  What could happen if something is wrong?  Worse, what happens if a fault is admitted?

Everything in the OMS files is put there by people.  People make mistakes.  People are flawed.  Sometimes a person’s flaws allow them to feed the files with wicked fantasies.  After all, “it’s in the computer so it must be right.”  No fear of reprimand.  Is there a mushy middle between fact and biased opinion?  How far can the envelop be pushed and still support credibility.  What is the test?  What is the standard?

Activist inmates are seen as troublemakers and steps to neutralize their challenges to the system are a typical response.  It’s preferable to ignore the validity of an offender’s cause and instead bury protest, a relatively simple process for someone in a position of power.  One inmate on our radar had his work turned on its head and used against him when the institution’s warden filed a description of his helping inmates correctly file specific grievances as an “insurrection,” and his counselling in the use of the law and CSC policy in interactions with staff as a “reign of terror.”  Prison personnel had little choice but to go along with the sham, and this false scenario, this disinformation, is now a part of that inmate’s OMS file.

Moved to another institution as a result, this inmate spoke to his new Institutional Parole Officer (IPO), who are guards trained for these posts, expressing his concern and outrage over the blatant dishonesty used to discredit him.   This IPO answered his charge by saying that these accusations were written by ‘professionals’ who do not lie.  Circumstances like these are more the rule than the exception.

Is there such a thing as a ‘clean’ OMS file?

“It’s in the computer so it must be right.”

When is right wrong?

…..AND HIS KILLERS ARE STILL FREE.

The three-week inquest into the December 15, 2016, death of Soleiman Faqiri at the hands of guards in an Ontario jail ended on December 12 last year.  His death was ruled a homicide; the jury made 57 recommendations intended to prevent future fatalities.
They won’t.

The Ontario government can adopt if it chooses all 57 recommendations to prevent further jail deaths caused by staff interactions with inmates.
They won’t and it won’t.

Yusuf Faqiri, Soleiman’s older brother, wrote in Toronto’s Globe and Mail four days after the inquest jury’s verdict came down that “Soleiman’s tragic death can be an opportunity for our government to stand on the right side of history and begin necessary transformation of the correctional system.”
Be surprised if they do.

Yusuf also wrote that “the guards who killed Soleiman must be held criminally accountable for their actions.  The coroner’s inquest found nearly 60 policy breaches in the time leading up to Soleiman’s death.  The coroner’s report showed that Soleiman had 50 bruises on his body, his legs and hands tied, having been pepper sprayed under the spit hood.”
We can wish.

Our last Soleiman Faqiri entry back on April 16 last year anticipated a year’s-long wait for an inquest to begin.  The family did wait six years but that it began when it did was a marvel, and so we’re prepared to be surprised.  All the same, the ending of that last post is still relevant.

Nothing will change the narrative around Soleiman’s death without the participation of people like you and like me.
Nothing will change the outcome of future deaths in custody without the participation of people like you and like me.

We sent comments to Ontario’s Solicitor General……

January 29. 2024

The Honourable Michael Kerzner, Solicitor General,
Office of the Solicitor General,
25 Grosvenor Street, 18^th Floor,
Toronto, ON  M7A 1Y6

Re:      Soleiman Faqiri Inquest

Minister Kerzner:

The most important question in determining what led to Soleiman Faqiri’s death at the Central East Detention Centre on December 15, 2016, was and still is, why were guards in his cell?

The jury didn’t ask the question while I was able to watch the inquest, and the 57 recommendations suggest it was never asked.  If it was, the jury members accepted a cursory response and did not pursue a close examination.  Remember that the sole reason guards had their hands on this man was to move him from the shower to his cell.  They had only to close that cell door and walk away.

Two other questions were never put on the table.  As Soleiman was being led down the range, a guard leaned over and said something that agitated him.  What did the guard say?  Then too, outside the cell, with Soleiman still bent over and controlled, a guard pointed a pepper spray cannister upwards and sprayed him directly in the face.  Why?   For one, isn’t it against policy to spray someone in the face and mouth?

As an added observation, the frenzied activity on the range after Soleiman was non-responsive had more to do, in my opinion, with the ramifications for staff if he needed hospitalization or could not be revived than it did for Soleiman’s wellbeing.  There’s no question that opinion is widely shared.

As a bottom line, inquest/inquiries into incidents of harm to federal and provincial inmates have resulted in some progressive prison/jail policy improvements, but the impact on practice is open to serious scrutiny.  The Soleiman Faqiri Inquest will not prevent future similar events, just as past inquests anywhere in Canada have also failed.

Real change begins with a forced inside-out reboot of carceral culture, along with the federal government’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).

Full stop.

What the Solicitor General’s office wants now is silence.
Guaranteed.
Please go away is the message.

WHERE IS ANNE KELLY & Correctional Service of Canada keeping the new, revised, and legally compliant Media Relations Commissioner’s Directive 022?

DOES IT TAKE ANNE KELLY & Correctional Service of Canada four years plus to rewrite, review and release a single policy revision?

INTENTIONALLY CONSIGNED TO SILENCE on our back burner for more than seven months while waiting for CSC to meet a commitment, it’s due time to question Ms. Kelly’s intentions again.

January 16, 2024

Anne Kelly, Commissioner,
Correctional Service of Canada,
National Headqarters,
340 Laurier Avenue West,
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0P9

Re:      REVISION to Commissioner’s Directive CD 022 Media Relations

Commissioner Kelly:

Excerpt from the Correctional Investigator’s Annual Report, 2019-2020, page 18:-
“Through the reporting period the Office intervened in cases or complaints that involved inmate access to the media.  In one case, we found that some of the policy criteria set out in Commissioner’s Directive 022 – Media Relations to be unreasonable, irrelevant or not founded in law.  In unreasonably denying or delaying an inmate’s access to the media, the Service may be in violation of recognized democratic principles and constitutionally guaranteed rights.  An incarcerated person does not forfeit the right to freedom of expression, and the wider public has a right to be informed of what goes on behind prison walls.” (emphasis is ours)

Your February 24, 2020, letter to Correctional Investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger acknowledged receipt of his December 19, 2019, letter to you where he referenced your November 26, 2019, meeting to review his concerns for the restrictions CD 022 imposed; he went on to review the substance of that meeting.  In your acknowledgement, you agreed to a “full review,” noting a revision to CD 022 was “currently underway,” expecting “the revised CD 022 will be available by the end of June 2020.”

Pandemic restrictions slowed the process of course, but the path to the update has been overly slow and lumbering all the same.  From fall to spring of 2022-2023, this writer made several enquiries of you and Marco Mendicino, public safety minister at the time, questioning the delay in bringing a revision forward.  A response to all came in a May 4, 2023, letter from Assistant Commissioner Kirstan Gagnon, Communications and Engagement, file 344437.  I appreciated the lengths to which Ms. Gagnon went to justify the holdup in promulgating a compliant directive, but it read as a disingenuous obfuscation.

We are now at the beginning of the fifth year of this titanic undertaking to bring to fruition what should have been a relatively elementary project.  Even so, it appears Correctional Service of Canada is not committed to the public’s right to know “what goes on behind prison walls.”  The cover page of the February 8, 2023, draft of the replacement CD 022 lists one of its three purposes is “to ensure appropriate and proactive media relations that provide Canadians with timely, accurate, and newsworthy information about programs, services, and issues of public interest.”  CSC’s reaction to the authors of The Archambault Report 2.0 belies that purpose.

The Progressive Inmate Assembly distributed The Archambault Report 2.0 on October 24, 2023.  A limited collection of nine inmate essays compiled by the Archambault Institution (medium) Inmate Committee, contributors were free to choose any subject, but were asked to focus on “two very pressing and urgent matters,” systemic racism in CSC institutions, and the large number of incarcerated innocent people.  By the time of publication, one of the nine authors was a free man, while six others were involuntarily transferred out of Archambault in whole or in part because of this report, one sent as far as British Columbia.  (Facebook.com/TheArchambaultReport2.0)

So much for free expression.

Don’t you think it’s about time you flipped the switch and let us all see CSC’s updated vision for media relations with inmates?

distribution:
The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety

The Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice

The Honourable Kim Pate, Senator for Ontario

Dr. Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator of Canada

Shawn Tupper, Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada

Shalene Curtis-Micallef, Deputy Minister of Justice

Stacie Ogg, Deputy Director, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Kirstan Gagnon, CSC Assistant Commissioner, Communications and Engagement

Alessandria Page, CSC Regional Deputy Commissioner (Quebec)

turnoverarocktoday.com

CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR DR. IVAN ZINGER started this move to update Commissioner’s Directive 022 Media Relations, and we added a note to his copy of the letter:

January 16, 2024

Dr. Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator,
The Office of the Correctional Investigator,
P.O. Box 3421, Station “D”,
Ottawa, ON  K1P 6L4

Re:      Commissioner’s Directive 022 – Media Relations

Dear Dr. Zinger:

Enclosed are my latest comments to CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly around the delay in releasing the new media relations directive.

I am still working my way through your 2022-2023 Annual Report, but I doubt there was a need for you to address CD 022 in it until/unless CSC promulgates its revision.

At the same time, I’m hopeful you have been on top of this with the Commissioner over these long months.  She is simply allowing CSC critics to prove their complaints.

NO QUESTION.  Correctional Service of Canada, its executive, management, and staff can be openly defiant in their resistance to letting in the light.

Wonder why it happens.  Wonder why it’s allowed.

…..AND THE QUEST FOR TRUTH.

THREE LETTERS.

The December 3^rd posting, OPCAT! OPCAT! OPCAT! included a short excerpt from our November 13^th letter sent to six federal cabinet ministers and four deputy ministers in support of a November 1^st 3-page letter to the same group by the Office of the Correctional Investigator and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, calling for the ratification of OPCAT.

The body of the November 13^th letter is reprinted here:

Canadian human rights commission Interim Chief Commissioner Charlotte-Anne Malischewski and Correctional Investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger were far too polite in their joint November 1^st letter urging the ratification of the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).

Canada has stalled on ratifying OPCAT for good reason.  Canada claims to be a champion of human rights, but it is just that.  A claim.  You and your fellow cabinet members and senior civil servants who received the November 1^st letter know Canada would not stand up to scrutiny.  We talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I am a federal prison specialist and am well aware that Correctional Service of Canada does what it can to keep prying eyes out of its business.  Anne Kelly, her senior CSC staffers across the country, and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers management team would have conniption fits at the prospect of compliance with OPCAT.  All the more reason to get this done and put in place.

You owe Canadians an apology for obstructing the rights of our vulnerable populations.

Shawn Tupper, Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada responded on December 14.
In fairness to Mr. Tupper, his entire letter is published:

Thank you for your correspondence of November 13, 2023, regarding the status of Canada’s ratification of the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).

First, I want to assure you that Canada is committed to the prevention of torture, and to the elimination of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  Torture is an abhorrent practice that Canada fervently opposes, as one of the original signatories to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

There is a strong existing framework of laws and policies in place in Canada which prohibit the use of torture, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as well as many other legal and operational measures.

Further, I want to emphasize the strong value that Canada places on the independent oversight of conditions in places of detention, which plays a crucial role in improving conditions and preventing ill-treatment.  Canada also has many well-established, robust domestic mechanisms in place to ensure that detainees are treated in accordance with international standards.  A number of these bodies have the level of independence envisioned by the OPCAT, and many carry out visits to detention facilities on a proactive basis.

Consideration of Canada’s potential accession to the OPCAT is ongoing.  Consultations have previously been undertaken, and efforts continue to be explored within the Government of Canada to work through the range of policy and implementation considerations.

The Government of Canada remains steadfast in its commitments to the prevention of torture and the elimination of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.  We are proud of the existing robust legislative and operational foundation Canada has in this area and are committed to continued advancements.

Thank you again for taking the time to write on this important issue.

Mr. Tupper is out of touch with reality.  He is unaware of where truth is found, doesn’t want to know where truth is, or works to muddy the waters in defence of an inexcusable status quo.  No matter which, this could not go unanswered.
A January 2^nd retort to Mr. Tupper also went to the other nine on the original list, plus Correctional Investigator Ivan Zinger and Canadian Human Rights Commissioner Charlotte-Anne Malischewski.

Your December 14, 2023, letter in response to mine of November 13 calling on Canada to ratify OPCAT is much appreciated.  You do know you proved my argument.

Yes, Canada ratified the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 1987.  As you wrote, we can point to “the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as well as many other legal and operational measures” in support of Canada’s commitment to “the prevention of torture, and to the elimination of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”  That’s the problem.  This is only window dressing without punitive enforcement of that commitment.

I’m one of innumerable Canadians who know that our federal prison industry lacks transparency and accountability.   I underwrote an action against CSC a few years ago and know government rigidity prevents the exposure of wrong-doing and absolves civil servant perpetrators as a condition of lawsuit resolutions.  I’ve learned through a freedom of information request too that the amounts of money paid out in settlements to protect CSC’s autonomy is subject to privacy legislation.  We are not to know the cost of CSC’s perfidy.

Now, less than two weeks ago on December 19, B.C. Federal Court Justice Simon Fothergill certified a class action against CSC, alleging decades of systemic anti-Black racism within our prison industry.  This adds to a long list of claims taking CSC to task for its daily violation of the safeguards you champion.

Canada has good reason to keep OPCAT considerations “ongoing.”  Does that also explain why, after four years, CSC has yet to promulgate its revised CD 022 – Media Relations?

And so, the battle goes.

And, that updated Media Relations Commissioner’s Directive is not forgotten.
More to come…..in time.

THE ARCHAMBAULT REPORT 2.0 was first referenced here on November 19 in a posting focused on anti-black racism in the prison industry.  To refresh, the Archambault Report 2.0 is a series of essays written by inmates incarcerated in the Archambault Institution on the north side of Montreal, assembled by the Inmate Committee there and widely distributed on October 24 by the Progressive Inmate Assembly.

There are at least three forms of language discrimination at play within our federal prison industry.  The first is how Anglophone and Allophone inmates are treated differently than Francophone inmates in Quebec institutions.  The second, again endemic in Quebec, is inmates who are refused verbal communications in English from staff where English is the inmate’s only or preferred language, and inmates who are refused written or printed documentation in English, leading to time-consuming third-party interventions.

The third form of language discrimination is prison system wide.  Misinformation and disinformation often contaminate inmate files.  The former may be unintentional due to miscommunication, but the latter is always deliberate and calculated, meant to discredit an inmate to meet a Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) generated narrative.

Rectifying errors and fabrications first involve using the tools available through CSC, the grievance/complaints process, along with applications for file changes.  It will easily take a year or more to exhaust these avenues, and almost universally will not succeed.  The next move is to seek remedy in federal court, not necessarily an easy route to a win.  And, if the court does decide in an inmate’s favour, there is still the matter of CSC’s compliance.  Redress if changes are not met or don’t fully satisfy the court’s decision means going after the government again.

For now, this will centre on the first two forms of language discrimination.  Excepts from just two inmate contributions to the Archambault Report 2.0 will example Quebec’s effort to eliminate the use of English in federal institutions.

Again as we did on November 19, we’ll reference the comprehensive contribution to the report made by Andrew Belcourt, and what he wrote under his heading, Systemic Discrimination Based on Language:-
I’ll give you an example here that is short, simple, direct, & telling.  When they announce the work movement here at Archie’s (Archambault), the announcement is different, based on language.  In French they say, “Début de movement de travail,” basically, “Beginning the work movement.”  In English they announce, “Inmates report to the shops NOW!!!”  One is an announcement; one is a command.  One prisoner told me it reminded him of South Africa during apartheid.  How even language was weaponed with hate.
Solution:  Uproot all racists, stem and all.  Send a clear message.  These ‘tolerance courses’ or ‘race relations training’ staff get, just teaches them how not to get caught being a racist, by learning key defensive words against accusers.  And they also like to fall back on their training they took as proof of their tolerance.  Like, “No I don’t hate those people, I sat through a 2-hour training course that taught me to ignore my deepest darkest opinions of them.”

Gary Young is also an inmate contributor to the Archambault Report 2.0.  He was president of the long-term offenders group (LTO) and was involuntarily transferred to a maximum security prison, in part because of his essay.  This is the chapter he headed Systemic Language Discrimination:-
I am an Anglophone Canadian, and I am very concerned about my language rights being taken away completely.  The government claims that no mater what French changes happen in Quebec, that healthcare will never be affected by the language dispute.  This is simply not true.  I have been here for years, and I almost never have proper medical service in English.
This is abhorrent.  How can anyone claim that in the future my Charter Rights will be protected when they are not being protected now?  I have health issues, so I tend to see healthcare a lot more frequently than most.  I can see and feel what is going on.  When I talk to the doctor, I have a distinct feeling that I’m not getting the help that I need.  When I interact with the nurses, most of them will speak only French to me, and I know some of them speak English (I have heard them talk to others in the past.)  These interactions make me feel that I am doing something wrong, but it’s not me, it’s them!  There are French Canadians serving time outside Quebec, in other provinces.  I am arguing for the same protection for both languages suffering discrimination anywhere in Canada.  But we all know the truth.  Language discrimination may exist everywhere in Canada, but only in Quebec is the discrimination legal.  They are passing new laws, outlawing my official language.  That’s not happening anywhere else in Canada.  Also look at the numbers, there are 25-30% Anglophones serving federal time in every Quebec prison.  Outside Quebec, the average Francophone prison population is less than 1%.  Despite the need for language protection across the country, the need in Quebec is real and vivid.  Today, we are being discriminated against because the Quebecois feel they have ‘perceived’ social permission from Quebec to hate us.  Soon, they will have ‘perceived’ legal permission to hate us.  And things will get ugly.

These are only a sampling from just one report that echoes the common experience of English-speaking inmates in Quebec’s federal prisons.  Correctional Service of Canada’s national headquarters in Ottawa, and our federal civil servants who are charged with CSC oversight are fully aware of this travesty of policy.

What are they doing?  Obfuscating the facts.  Standard operating practice.

RETURNING TO DO BATTLE ON JANUARY 7
“If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.”

Who needs OPCAT?
WE DO!  WE DO!  WE DO!
NOW!

On November 1^st, Ivan Zinger, Canada’s Correctional Investigator, and Charlotte-Anne Malischewski, Interim Chief Commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, jointly emailed a three-page letter to six federal cabinet members and four deputy ministers.

The subject?  Open letter calling for Canada’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT)

It was sent to ministers Mélanie Joly/Foreign Affairs, Pascale St-Onge/Canadian Heritage, Arif Virani/Justice, and Dominic LeBlanc/Public Safety, expressing their concern for the lack of progress to Canada’s ratification of OPCAT, and the implications that had for “individuals deprived of their liberty in this country.”  Copies went to ministers Marc Miller/Immigration, Kamal Kher/Diversity and deputy ministers David Morrison/Foreign Affairs, Isabelle Mondou/Canadian Heritage, Shalene Curtis-Micallef/Justice, and Shaw Tupper/Public Safety.

According to the letter, OPCAT has been available for ratification for over 20 years, and there were currently 92 State parties and an additional 13 signatories.  Canada had indicated an intention in May of 2016 to ratify OPCAT, but despite many calls to follow though, “the public record on Canada’s ratification of OPCAT remains unclear.”  That was far too polite, given the evidence of rights’ abuses.  At one point, 27 countries recommended that Canada ratify the protocol.  (Editor’s note:  The United States has also declined to accept OPCAT.)

It went on to clarify the needs for ratification, the country’s inadequate current oversight of human rights for vulnerable people, and the readily available process to achieve the government’s 2016 intention.  The bottom line?  “Accordingly, we call on Canada to sign the OPCAT without delay and ratify it in a timely manner in order to strengthen human rights protections for people deprived of their liberty across Canada.”

We sent a supporting letter to the same 10 politicians and public servants on November 13; it was a much shorter and blunt endorsement of the Zinger/Malischewski appeal.  We asked for an apology to our vulnerable populations for obstructing their rights.  We inferred that CSC Commissioner “Anne Kelly, her senior CSC staffers across the country, and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers management teams would have conniption fits at the prospect of compliance with OPCAT.”

Correctional Service of Canada fears OPCAT! was published here on August 27, 2023.  It underscored how ratification has been stymied by opposing forces in the public service.
An excerpt:-
“’I want to reassure you that we take any allegations of misconduct involving our staff very seriously.  All allegations, regardless of source, are duly investigated and, when required, we always take appropriate measure toward our staff members.’
This is from a prison warden’s letter this past July in answering one of ours.  Over the years, we have collected many letters from Correctional Service of Canada personnel at the national, regional, and institutional levels, citing this paragraph verbatim…or close to it.  Where inmate interests are involved though, the correct reaction is…no, they don’t…no, they don’t…no, they don’t.”

Commissioner Kelly sends out frequent “messages for correctional employees,” and “messages for offenders and their families.”  Less often she issues “messages for correctional stakeholders,” and “messages for volunteers.”

Her November 14^th message to offenders and their families included a shout-out for Nurse Practitioner’s Week (November 12-18) which prompted a comment from us on behalf of an inmate in an Ontario federal prison.  The relevant portion of our letter reads:-
“Referring specifically to paragraph three where you congratulate nurse practitioners as valuable members of the Health Services team who play a crucial role in providing high-quality care in institutions, you ask that nurse practitioners be thanked for their ‘expertise, compassion, and commitment to improving health.’

You have your head in the sand was the inmate’s reaction.

His implication is that what CSC publishes for public consumption does not match the inmate experience in federal institutions.  Or it might be that you truthfully believe what you commit to paper, in which case you are not familiar with life in the trenches.

The quality of care provided by nurse practitioners may be a minor issue in CSC operations overall, but it does example the need for OPCAT’s ratification as argued by Correctional Investigator Ivan Zinger and Interim Chief Commissioner Charlotte-Anne Malischewski of the Canadian human rights commission in their November 1^st letter to six cabinet members and four deputy ministers.

Canada talks the talk on human rights but does not walk the walk.  One wonders why.”

OPCAT promises to sort CSC facts from CSC narrative, and separate misinformation from disinformation.

Why wouldn’t we want that?