Thank you, Ms. Penner.
I have another question that I'm hoping each of you can take time to expand on or respond to. I'll start by responding to Ms. Chwalczuk's comments.
You said in your opening remarks that Anne Kelly's response brought anger and grief yet again from knowing that he, Mr. Bernardo, may have more rights than the victims he left behind, and that it was very disturbing that the families and friends were left to do nothing but watch.
Over and over again, each of you has commented on the rights of the victim versus the rights of the criminal. I think you've drawn attention to the fact that there is an imbalance there.
On the rights of the victims, the commissioner was here with us in the room. I'm reading a report. It says in the commissioner's directive, CD 705, section 7, that the offender's right is to receive the rationale as well as the information considered regarding the transfer decision, but victims are not entitled to the same. This inequity is further intensified when considering that offenders can seek redress if dissatisfied. This same right is not mirrored for victims.
There are two things going on here. One is that it's being outlined that offenders have the right to know the rationale and to be given information with regard to their transfer, but the victims don't. They are not afforded that same right.
Then the second thing is that if the criminal disagrees with the decision, he can take redress. There are steps he can take. However, if victims disagree with the decision or if they're affected by that decision on a personal level—which, of course, the three of you have been—there is no redress.
My question is this: Does this speak of a system that puts victims ahead of criminals?