Thank you for the question. I apologize. It must be my failure. I didn't communicate my view clearly.
The five years that I was referring to was not the reclassification for transfers from one penitentiary to another. I was referring to the continuity of parole hearings and not the transfers. For the parole hearings for offenders like Paul Bernardo, once they hit the 25-year mark there is a parole hearing. Instead of the parole hearing thereafter happening every two years for the rest of their lives, it should be every five years.
With respect to parole, while it's my view—and it was the view of Associate Chief Justice LeSage—that Paul Bernardo should spend the rest of his natural life in prison, that's not suggesting he is not entitled to appear before the Parole Board and persuade them of a different view. I think that, in order for all of us to be constitutionally sound, these offenders, no matter what they've done, must always have the right to go to an independent tribunal like the Parole Board and try to persuade them to release them.
That's why I've been emphasizing that we need much more transparency. I think there should be legislative change in this regard, recognizing that.... Actually, it's already recognized by the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that these parole hearings are integral to the sentencing and the criminal justice system, and that they're public and everything has to be transparent. Then at least we can evaluate whether or not the system is functioning properly.