Okay.
First, I would like to take the opportunity to provide sincere condolences to the family and friends of Ms. Marylène Levesque.
I have two preoccupations with this case. The first one is that this is an extreme case. It's a very rare event when somebody who committed murder is released and commits murder again. To my knowledge, this only happened more than eight years ago. The preoccupation for me is that those extreme cases test the system as a whole. There is always the danger that those extreme cases can result in bad policy and bad law. Bad cases make for bad policy and bad law. We should be conscientious about that extreme case. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at very carefully, because it's a blatant failure of the system.
My second preoccupation flows from the first one. When such an extreme case happens, what kind of investigation do you need to put in place? For me, it has to be a very credible investigation. That requires independence, certainly, and also the level of investigative tools and powers associated to ensure that you get to the bottom of it. What I find in this case is that we have an investigation that's going to be conducted that was convened by the commissioner and the chair of the Parole Board jointly. It's basically an internal investigation. In terms of the process, I think that is problematic. When you have an allegation of wrongdoing where you possibly will be looking at negligence in carrying out their duties, you shouldn't ask the agency responsible for that to investigate themselves. That is never done in policing. That should never be done.
I've made similar recommendations when egregious cases happened in corrections. Last year I made the recommendation to the Minister of Public Safety that when there is death in custody following a riot or following a use of force by correctional officers, these things should be investigated independently, with all the right tools. That can only be done, in my view, under the Inquiries Act, not by an internal investigation.