Well, quite frankly, that's the initial purpose of the investigation. As the docket comes in, if it's related to health care issues, for example, and they're indicating that they've put down to see the doctor and they haven't been able to see the doctor in a month's time or the likes.... As we investigate, we would go to the health care area and inquire with the nursing staff or the chief of health care as to whether this individual has been seen or an appointment has been made.
Oftentimes it may come across that, yes, he's listed for the doctor, or he's listed for an appointment. The clinic is.... Some of these fellows have been inside for quite a long period of time. As Canadian citizens, we recognize that things aren't immediate sometimes. The clinic only runs on certain days. So there's merit to his concern in terms of the timeframe, but the reality of it is that the information hasn't been relayed properly to him in terms of the timeframes or what's involved.
The frivolous or vexatious ones surface after we've done a bunch of investigating, unfortunately, and have determined in no uncertain terms that there is no merit. The example would be that the harassment complaints increase in number. That's very concerning to me as the warden; all of a sudden I have a whole bunch of harassment complaints on staff from a particular inmate.
You can be in an external review. They review everybody independently. They're not known to the institution. They're not part of any kind of institutional culture. What comes back is no, there was no merit to what was being put forward there, other than the fact that the inmate was told to get off the phone at lock-up time and was locked up and the like.
I don't know if that answers your question.