Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Further in the review report that was issued over the summer in response to the Bernardo transfer, it noted that the SRS override—he had received a security designation of medium, but this is for the 13 times it was overridden—was primarily done because of “measures that were required to manage the [inmate's] safety, rather than behavioural concerns.”
I find it interesting that it was more about the safety of the offender. It didn't seem like there was too much concern about the behaviours exhibited by the offender, which the parole board has stated were manipulative, grandiose, glib and showed lack of remorse for his actions. It goes on and on. This is a psychopath we're dealing with, and the parole board has reiterated that multiple times.
I also find it interesting that the definitions of security classifications that were provided by the library describe the environment of medium-security institutions as one that “allows interaction among inmates and prepares them for a minimum security institution.” I note that CSC noted that it doesn't necessarily mean they will go to a minimum-security facility or that they'll be released into the public, but it's very concerning to me and I would like to be able to reassure Canadians and the families of the victims that this is not part of an effort to cascade Mr. Bernardo from maximum security to medium security, which, by definition, is to prepare him for a potential transfer to a minimum-security prison.
Can Mr. Wilkins or any of the other witnesses provide assurances to Canadians and this committee that Mr. Bernardo will not be cascaded down to a minimum-security prison?