Although the purpose of the exercise was to get a pool of information, a number of the prisoners whose names were posted were identified principally by one staff member. For example, Greg Hanson was identified by a correctional supervisor based on his behaviour in segregation the previous week. The prisoner was described as "smooth as butter" in his dealings face to face with staff but "when your back is turned he is completely different." Richard Ambrose was identified by a staff member as someone who was involved in handling money in the institution and who had a lot of influence.

"Influence" was also the basis for targeting other prisoners. Art Winters was identified by several staff members as the very influential leader of an Edmonton group who had transferred to Matsqui several months earlier and taken over the Lifers' canteen. This group was said to be waiting in the wings to take over the institution; they had little time for drug users. There was a lot of discussion regarding Darryl Ghostkeeper and Ron Tessier, members of the Inmate Committee. Mr. Ghostkeeper was believed to be heavily involved in drug use, and his position as president of both the Inmate Committee and the Native Brotherhood was seen as a conflict of interest. The Native Liaison Officer observed that Mr. Ghostkeeper's drug problem was well known to the Brothers and that the Native Elder, Pat Henrickson, was spending a lot of time with him trying to address it. Ron Tessier was identified as being influential also in the francophone group and with the drug group.

Within half an hour there were fifty to sixty names on the lists. The warden announced that there would be only two minutes more for listing names and commented that it was interesting that the whole population (some four hundred prisoners) did not appear on the wall but only selected prisoners. He saw this as confirmation of the fact that only a minority of prisoners were the real problem. In my view, however, the limitation to only fifty or sixty names was purely a product of the amount of time allowed for the exercise.

The warden then explained that the second stage of the exercise would identify a smaller group who merited specific strategies. However, the only strategy he mentioned was putting the members of this group in segregation. One staff member said that the punks should be taken off the list because they could be handled in the population one on one. Another staff member said that the Edmonton group should be taken off the list because they had not yet made their move. If Mr. Ghostkeeper and Mr. Tessier were removed from the Inmate Committee and put in segregation, the leaders of the Edmonton group would probably take their place, he said; that group would be easier to deal with and would have a more positive influence on the population.

One staff member very pointedly asked the warden, "How are you going to do this legally?" Warden Brock's response was, "We have information on a lot of these guys. Once we have got them upstairs [in segregation], we don't have to follow through with involuntary transfers. When they are sitting upstairs knowing that they could face transfers, they may turn around. If they don't, then we'll follow through." The warden was also asked the question, "Are we going to throw out all the rules?" His answer was that no one had any confidence in the intelligence system through which the IPSOs currently gathered information; what was going on that afternoon was a different process. The question of the legality of the exercise was not really answered.

As three o'clock drew near, attention focussed on drawing up the final list of individuals who would be segregated. This list was assembled quickly, in a quite extraordinary way: staff would shout out the name of a particular prisoner, and the name would then be written on a flip chart. There was no attempt to see if there was consensus on any particular name. In the case of one prisoner -- Mike Miller -- his case management officer clearly stated that he ought not to be on the list, but he remained on it anyway. Another prisoner, Peter Paquette, was more fortunate. A number of security staff identified Mr. Paquette as a negative influence. The Native Liaison Officer managed to persuade people that Mr. Paquette was not active, however, and was interested only in getting out of prison. His name, therefore, was not included. The last two names were added in the final moments of the meeting.

There was no attempt during the meeting to determine whether information was reliable, corroborated, or recent. Indeed, several prisoners initially identified as troublemakers were no longer in the institution; in one case, the prisoner had not been in the institution for several months. To my mind, this cast doubt on the credibility of the staff members' sense of who the movers and shakers were and who had current influence in the institution. The final list of eleven included seven prisoners I had previously interviewed. The other four prisoners I did not know. The meeting broke up with the indication that these eleven prisoners would be scooped the next day.

One remarkable feature of the tracking meeting was the minimal participation of the three case management officers present. Case management officers are responsible for preparing progress summaries relating to parole and transfer, critical documents in determining a prisoner's future. CMOs participate in the Performance Boards and present cases for Escorted Temporary Absences (ETAs) at the Temporary Absence Board. Within the system, they are the key players in terms of synthesizing information and reflecting it in documents for decision-makers. The tracking meeting was designed to improve the flow of information, with the maximum involvement of all staff. Yet CMOs were underrepresented, and even though the IPSOs had identified ten high-profile individuals at the outset, no effort was made to ensure that the CMOs for those prisoners were present. The final list was compiled without any effective contribution from the CMOs, and, in the case of one prisoner, in the face of the CMO's opposition.

Page 2 of 3