Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for the work you and your members do and for representing them here today.
Mr. Ménard, thank you for your last answer, because I think it would be very dangerous if anyone would try to suggest that this committee, to the victims of Paul Bernardo, their families and friends.... For anyone to suggest without any basis in fact that somehow this individual is going to be in the community is simply reckless.
I really appreciate your clear explanation of how this process works and of precisely why politicians don't make prison transfer classification decisions, because it's experts—all three of you, with your membership—that actually build the work to make these decisions. Thank you for putting that on the record and reassuring Canadians of the actual process, for not allowing some sort of fearmongering and political games for the sake of, I don't know.... To use such heinous crimes for a political win, I think, is really upsetting.
Mr. Wilkins, you talked about having your officers' opinions and observations be more a part of this process. You spoke about how parole officers...or how inmates may act very differently around parole officers, and I can completely see that. Perhaps I will leave it out to the parole officers.
How do you manage? Is there a mechanism that enables you to seek input from corrections officers to start building into a larger profile of the individual? I can see Mr. Wilkins's point being very valid, about an inmate's day-to-day behaviour being different from what they're demonstrating to, let's say, a parole officer. Do you have any comments on how that interaction could work better?