What to do when the iron is hot.

Two areas of recurring concern with Correctional Service of Canada’s operation of our federal prisons came up again in February.

The first is another push for prison needle programs, reported in the Toronto Star under Alex Ballingall’s byline on February 3 (“Prison needle programs touted to reduce HIV and Hap C risk”), and Kristy Kirkup’s column on February 13 (“Health study recommends prison syringe programs”).

“No drugs in prison is an aspirational goal that isn’t really achievable,” concluded Prisoners with HIV/AIDS Support Action Network’s Seth Clarke (PASAN), published in a report released early in February. Toronto researchers, including Ryerson University’s Emily van der Meulen as lead author, PASAN, and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network hosted a conference on the subject, and later conducted interviews with health workers, inmates, and prison workers.

There are 60 existing programs in other countries, some like Switzerland’s have been running for more than 20 years, and there have been no reports of needles used as weapons. Even a 1999 Correctional Service of Canada study found needle programs “effective and well proven”.

Why should you care? Infection rates for HIV among inmates can be 10 times higher than in the general population, and Hep C can be as much as 30 times higher. At the moment, for inmates who are able to access treatment (and that can be a challenge), HIV drugs can run up to $30,000 a year, and new Hep C drugs that will cure the infection are about $60,000. This comes from your tax dollars! To boot, most inmates will return to the community where there are transmission risks, and additional drug costs; not to mention the human rights element, where prison inmates are entitled in theory to the same level of health care available to the rest of us.

Adding his voice, Howard Sapers, Canada’s Correctional Investigator, has argued that CSC should explore all harm reduction options when confronting the reality of ballooning health care costs.

There is an ongoing legal challenge against the government on this issue, launched in 2012 by an inmate in western Canada, along with community stakeholders. Government spokespersons are unable to comment openly as a result. However, the previous federal government (you remember it?) provided CSC with $120 million to fight access to drugs in prison, and while that increased interventions, is also drove up institutional drug prices. What’s left of that money could be diverted to the more progressive recommendations.

In another development, Lisa Kerr, assistant professor, at Queen’s University Faculty of Law essayed in a mid-February Globe and Mail edition (“Fewer inmates in solitary makes for case for legal reforms”) that Correctional Service of Canada has been reducing the number of inmates in segregation.

There has been no change in the law that could explain the reduction. However, the Trudeau government made it clear that it intends to implement changes on the use of solitary confinement in the face of CSC opposition to interference with its operational policies. It could be argued that CSC management is responding to the level of scrutiny and criticism of the practice in hopes passing time will diminish government oversight, thus allowing it to continue as it always has.

In both cases, prison needle programs and the reduction/elimination of solitary confinement, leaving reforms to the prison bureaucracy will bear only sour fruit. We have a federal government that is pushing evidence based policies for the benefit of all. The time to strike for new legislation and impose best practices on CSC is while our iron is hot.

In other words, now!

And the music goes on and on……

The printed material Correctional Service of Canada submitted in response to our information and privacy requests has been reviewed, along with Stephen Fineberg’s translations. Most of the reports, declarations, observations, and evaluations are in French. Just as with the video discs, the delay in analyzing the 40 pages CSC released shows our reluctance to confront what is a difficult event.
Nonetheless, before we comment, further consultation with Brennan Guigue is necessary.

In the meantime, our Montreal lawyer, impatient with the lack of any response from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to a complaint first filed last September, wrote again:-

Stephen Fineberg, Avocat/Attorney,
625, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest,
Suite 900,
Montreal, Québec,
H3B 1R2

February 15, 2016

Monsieur Jean Plamondon,
For the Registrar,
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada,
30 Victoria Street, 1st Floor,
Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3

Re: Complaint re Privacy Request P-2014-04423
& Access Request A-2014-00314

Monsieur Plamondon:

On September 3, 2015, I wrote on behalf of my client, Mr. Brennan Guigue to file a complaint concerning the action taken by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) on my client’s Access and Privacy requests. In response you explained an authorization signed by Mr. Guigue was required for me to serve as his representative. Mr. Guigue accordingly forwarded such an authorization to your office. On November 13, 2015 I again wrote to file a complaint on his behalf. I am writing now to inquire if that complaint has indeed been initiated.

Furthermore, Mr. Guigue wishes to advise your office that he is convinced the video material forwarded by CSC did not include all the footage of him that was recorded by the hand-held camera. To be more specific, he believes CSC has withheld relevant material which the hand-held camera recorded subsequent to the footage which was shared. He asks that your office take this into consideration in your examination of the existing footage of the incident in question.

Sincerely,

Stephen Fineberg
Counsel to Brennan Guigue

Now, while Mr. Fineberg didn’t suggest I intervene, I also wrote to underscore the point he made in his letter:

February 19, 2016

Mr. Jean Plamondon,
For the Registrar,
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada,
30 Victoria Street, 1st Floor,
Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3

Re: Your file 041614
Complaint re Privacy Request P-2014-04423
& Access Request A-2014-00314
Brennan Wayne Guigue

Dear Sir:

I have a copy of Stephen Fineberg’s February 15th follow-up to his November 13, 2014 letter filing a complaint on behalf on Brennan Guigue.

I am Brennan’s father. While I don’t expect your office to include me in your correspondence on this matter, I am compelled to comment on the outrageous behaviour of Correctional Service of Canada.

CSC responded to a request for video files by providing five discs. The same 32 minutes and 26 seconds is readable on the first four. All other information is unavailable. Those 32 minutes and 26 seconds set the stage for what the hand-held camera continued to record after, and the following 45 to 75 minutes at least are most relevant to Brennan’s complaint. Correctional Service of Canada is purposely withholding evidence of its culpability.

You should also note that both Correctional Service of Canada, and the Office of the Correctional Investigator, concluded from their investigation of this July 22, 2014 incident at RCC in Montreal that the level of force used was “inappropriate”.

We expect Correctional Service of Canada to substantiate their own conclusion with the video evidence for which we’ve asked.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

In a later comment on this ‘project’, Stephen intimated that it might be necessary to take this to court to obtain what we should have had in the first place.

And, as a by-the-way, this is apparently not unusual when trying to wrench something from the government’s fingers. Outliving a complainant seems a legitimate ploy from our public servants.

U.S. dumps more mandatory sentencing.

On the same day that U.S. President Obama banned youth solitary confinement in federal prisons (Monday, January 25, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court expanded its ban on mandatory sentences of life in prison without parole for inmates convicted of murders committed before age 18. It argued that even those imprisoned years ago should have an opportunity to seek release.

The court’s 6-3 ruling supported Louisiana inmate Henry Montgomery, who is black and at age 17 was convicted in a 1963 shooting of a sheriff’s deputy at a time racial tensions in the area were running high. He’s spent more than half a century in prison with an automatic life sentence without parole.

An earlier Supreme Court ruling in 2012 said that mandatory life sentences without parole in homicide cases involving juveniles violated the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Monday decision ordered that the ban also applied retroactively to inmates convicted before that 2012 ruling was issued.

That means more than 1,000 people serving similar sentences in the United States could be resentenced or have an opportunity to apply for parole. This doesn’t guarantee their release. It will, however be the first time a judge will be able to take into account the qualities that may have made these under 18s less culpable than adults who committed the same crimes.

None of this is revolutionary. It’s progressive.

Tax accountability…it’s your money.

It’s a hallmark of most lives to complain about taxes….there’s too many, they’re too high, our politicians are misspending. So common at the municipal level, as perhaps these levies hit closer to home, and our civic public servants are more accessible. There’s an opposing argument too, claiming we want city services……as long as we don’t have to pay for them.

No matter where our opinions fall, accountability, or the lack of it, underscores much public angst. There is at least one area impacting all three levels of government where our tax dollars get spent, and we are entitled to know almost nothing about where that money is going.

We’ll use the City of Toronto as an example. Toronto is self-insured for up to five million dollars for successful liability actions taken against it. David Miller, a former mayor of the city, at one point during his tenure called for a review of the cost of police litigation. It had been revealed that the city had spent more than $30-million on over 8,000 lawsuits against the police during one seven year period.

Keep in mind that all or almost all successful actions against the police include non-disclosure clauses. These are our tax dollars, but we cannot know who, how much, or what for. This is not only about policing, as circumstances are the same no matter which part of our city government is a target.

So, the next time you have a problem with what you’re turning over to a government, why not complain about this secret spending of your money, and ask why our politicians fear disclosure?

Obama gets the message……and acts.

The Washington Post published a Barack Obama opinion piece on Monday, January 25, in which the president announced he is banning solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons, noting concerns about its harmful psychological effects.

Last summer, Obama directed the U.S. Justice Department to conduct a review of the practice, and this new package of changes includes an expansion of treatment for mentally ill prisoners, and an increase in the amount of time inmates in solitary can spend outside of their cells. Some 10,000 federal prisoners are affected by the new procedures that also mandate solitary confinement could no longer be used as a punishment for low-level infractions.

The move echoes a U.S. national movement demanding criminal justice reform, arising in part from numerous high-profile police killings in the last few years. Mr. Obama in particular cited the story of Kalief Browder, a black 16-year-old who was arrested in 2010 and spent almost two years in solitary in New York’s Rikers Island jail before his release in 2013 and eventual suicide two years later. The president said research suggests solitary confinement is linked to depression, alienation, withdrawal, a reduced ability to interact with others, and the potential for violent behaviour.

He noted that U.S. states have worked to cut back the use of segregation in their penal institutions and have seen drops in assaults on staff, and more prisoners engage in rehabilitation programs as a result. The president hopes the changes he’s ordered will encourage reforms in all state and local prisons. “There are as many as 100,000 people held in solitary confinement in U.S. prisons – including juveniles and people with mental illnesses,” he said. “As many as 25,000 inmates are serving months, even years of their sentences alone in a tiny cell.”

President Obama wrote that solitary confinement is “increasingly overused on people…..with heartbreaking results – which is why my administration is taking steps to address this problem.”

Take that, Stephen Harper!     Justin Trudeau, pay attention!

Break down the walls!

On October 13 of last year, a week before the federal election, Correctional Service of Canada introduced its  staff to 12 solitary confinement reforms, part of a response to the Ashley Smith coroner’s inquest two years ago.  But, prison reform advocates say the changes do little to address numerous systemic flaws, and claim CSC has sidestepped the 104 recommendations made by the coroner’s jury.

Justin Trudeau issued a ministerial mandate letter a few weeks after becoming prime minister, calling for the implementation of all jury recommendations, specifically those concerning “solitary confinement and the treatment of inmates with mental illness.”  In late December, public safety minister Ralph Goodale reiterated the government’s intention to go beyond CSC’s current reform policies.

There is a snag, however.  Julian Falconer has said the current CSC leadership will stonewall any attempt to make substantive changes.  A Google search justifies a description of Mr. Falconer as one of Canada’s top human rights lawyers.  Jennifer Oates, former CSC Deputy Commissioner for Women, accuses CSC of having an inflexible attitude.  Lisa Kerr, assistant professor in the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University, who specializes in prison law and sentencing, adds her voice to the criticism of the prison agency.  These three are only part of a chorus of calls for major shifts in Canada’s federal penal system.

In spite of the CSC claim that the use of segregation/solitary confinement is in decline, Julian Falconer insists “they have an inbred cultural resistance to change”, and focuses his attention on current Commissioner Don Head.  Long ago, we concluded Correctional Service of Canada is abusive, dishonest, morally and ethically corrupt, and a blot on the landscape of this country.  A letter to Ralph Goodale puts in our two cents:

 

January 29, 2016

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

Re;      “Federal prison agency makes changes to segregation policy”
Globe and Mail, Tuesday, December 22, 2015
“Inmate segregation in decline, CSC says”
Globe and Mail, Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Dear Minister Goodale:

“…..any political leadership that is looking to actually implement serious change would be wasting tax dollars if they put Mr. Head in charge of that change,” so said Julian Falconer in response to the present government’s intention to act on the Smith inquest recommendations.

CSC did not need Ashley Smith or Edward Snowshoe’s experience in segregation to tell it things were seriously amiss in our federal prison system.

CSC did not need Ashley Smith and Edward Snowshoe’s death to show it drastic changes were overdue.

CSC did not need an inquest’s recommendations to point it in the direction it was to take.

CSC has never needed any more than the will to act.  This it does not have.  This it will not have…….until the management team at 340 Laurier Avenue West is swept away in favour of enlightened, progressive revisionists.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

cc         Jody Wilson-Raybould,
Howard Sapers
Don Head
Chris Hill

Change? For real?

We should all spend a few hours once each year watching the proceedings in our municipal council chambers, or sitting in the gallery of our provincial and federal legislative assemblies. It would be just as important to spend a half day in a courtroom….any courtroom. Noble intentions like these are pipe-dreams for the most part, but we need be encouraged nonetheless to monitor the people we place in positions of trust and authority.

We spent most of a day in mid-January in Toronto’s College Park 501 Court which is reserved for bail applications. We watched man after man from the Toronto South Detention Centre, Ontario’s notoriously ineptly run super-jail, comment (note we did not say ‘complain’) about lockdowns, no showers for days, no lawyers, no visitors, and no meds. One lawyer had his client brought up in person, not only to hold over the process to another date, but to have the Court intervene with the jail to have the man’s heart medications available.

Jail workers claim these lockdowns are primarily caused by staff shortages, and this is one of the concerns borne out in Patrick White’s Globe and Mail “Ontario indicates that major prison-system changes are in the works”, published on Saturday, January 16th of this year. According to available figures, the union representing staff say there were more than 900 lockdowns in Ontario’s provincial jails in 2014 because of staff shortages. At the same time, that figure is zero in some other provinces.

The Toronto South experience during 2015 suggests that staff shortages in the summer occurred mostly on the weekends, when too many guards called in sick and left the institution short-handed. To some, this was a union-mandated ploy to draw attention to its cause; to others, it was “barbecue-itis”, an inmate designation.

Yasir Naqvi, Ontario’s minister responsible for jails, is calling for some welcome reforms to address the issues which have brought the system to a low regard. Perhaps the most intriguing to us are statistics that show the number of pre-trial inmates in the system currently make up 60% of the jail population, compared to 30% a decade ago. “We don’t deal with capacity issues by building more jails, but by reducing the demand for jails,” according to Minister Naqvi. Mental-health care, and health care in general, are on his list for attention too, after the staffing shortage is addressed.

We can hope the minister’s resolve to push forward his reforms in the prison file are more substantive than his efforts to eliminate police ‘carding’. We’ve written Yasir Naqvi to offer our encouragement……….

January 23, 2016

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

Re: “Ontario indicates that major prison-system changes are in the works”
Globe and Mail, Saturday, January 16, 2016

Dear Minister Naqvi:

I spent most of a day last week in College Park 501 Court (bail applications) to update my observations on the state of the process in Ontario.

Man after man was called up from Toronto South Detention Centre, commenting about lockdowns, no showers, no lawyers, no visits, no meds. Access to lawyers and medications in particular should raise red flags in your Ministry, given the potential liability the provinces faces for damages.

Ontario has a way to go to match operational standards in some other provinces. Too, your intention to reduce the need for jails is both ambitious and warranted.

Be bold!

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

Brennan Guigue – Justice takes time.

Our latest data revises some of what is published in “The Light Beam Flickers” on November 9th last year. Specifically, the videos are both more and less revealing than we originally understood …. and expected.

Of the five discs received from Correctional Service Canada in response to our Access to Information request, the first copies video shot using a hand-held camera on July 22, 2014 at the Regional Reception Centre in Ste-Anne-des-Plaines north of Montreal. It commences at 5:11 pm on that day and runs for 32 minutes and 26 seconds. This material was quickly reviewed by Brennan last fall.

Discs #2 through #4 repeat what is on disc #1 and adds additional information, presumably shot in the same mode, except that disc #4 also contains material that may come from a fixed camera. Disc #5 appears to contain information from a fixed camera only. None of the material on discs #2 through #5 is readable, other than what we were able to review from disc #1 and it’s repetition on the next three discs.

Correctional Service of Canada has withheld everything other than those 32 minutes and 26 seconds. Stephen Fineberg has filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, suggesting CSC has withheld more than it is legally entitled to prevent us from seeing.

An analysis of that first disc confirms what both CSC and the Office of the Correctional Investigator earlier admitted; namely, the level of force used was inappropriate and inconsistent with their ‘Situation Management Model’, there was no emergency, and the use of OC (pepper spray) was not appropriate.

A closer examination of that video reveals that CSC guards intentionally ignored their employer’s policy, and engaged in prohibited activity. Further, their use of OC did not meet the manufacturer’s recommendations for the proper use of the chemical. Most notably, the CSC guards involved in this incident crossed the line into criminality and acted unlawfully under sections of Canada’s Criminal Code. They also violated provisions of the United Nation’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, to which this country is a signatory. At a point in the video after the attack, Brennan warns the six CSC employees they will have to answer for their behaviour.

To go further, staff at the RCC was aware boundaries had been overstepped and substituted Brennan on a “load” to Donnacona the following day, where he was placed in segregation and on cuff status, all in an attempt to hide him away. As previously noted, health care at Donnacona refused to document his injuries.

Brennan has insisted that video shot after what we’ve seen is more incriminating (refer to Just Another Day on the Range? from September 26 of 2014), and we’ve asked Stephen Fineberg to relay this to the OPC.

The printed material and translations are also in our possession. An initial read indicates at least a few contradictions. As expected though, no CSC employee will implicate the wrongdoing of another, or admit to breaking rules or the law themselves. We’ll report more on this after additional study.

As always, please stand by………

Gotta Minute? (18)

“First they arrested the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat so I did nothing. Then they arrested the trade unionists and I did nothing because I was not one. And then they came for the Jews and Catholics, but I was neither a Jew nor a Catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested me – and there was no one left to do anything about it.”
Reverend Marin Niemollor (Nazi prison survivor)

This is what can happen when we don’t pay attention.  Remember…..

….no vigilance, no democracy….

Never stop watching, talking, walking.

‘Carding’…..What we can learn.

This police ‘carding’ business just won’t stop. It won’t go away.

More than two dozen Ontario groups and individuals expressed their concerns in December around how the province’s Community Safety Minister Yasir Naqvi’s proposed legislation contains too many loopholes and exceptions, and doesn’t reflect the minister’s initial intent to put an end to carding. The “policing industry” has come out with its own differing criticisms of what already appears to be watered-down new rules, and which are currently under a 45 day review.

Our police are of course intimidated by any interference in their operations. It would appear though that somewhere between the minister’s first announcement, and his presentation of the draft legislation, police had already managed to intervene on their own behalf, gaining ground against an all-out ban.

What should we take from this on-going debate? Simply, our police services, public servants though they may be, assume they are a force onto themselves, and intend to broach no encroachment upon claims as an autonomous authority.

How is it possible for specific government agencies to hold such sway over the masters we have put in place to act on our behalf?

How is it possible? Again, we let ‘em.