The criteria that they use, notwithstanding words to the contrary, do not differentiate between these kinds of offenders—cases of someone like Paul Bernardo, which are very fact-specific—and the overwhelming majority of offenders. I think there have to be entirely different legislative and regulatory criteria for these individuals.
As I said in my opening, we must eliminate, for these types of offenders, the notion that the penitentiary sentence has to be the least restrictive. That is inconsistent with the sentencing principles, and it's inconsistent with what the trial judge, the sentencing judge, had to say about Mr. Bernardo.
Then, as I said a moment ago, on this criterion that because he's not representing a threat to the prison guards and other inmates that's a justification for transferring him to medium-security, or that he had fully integrated into a particular range that is very small, there just has to be a fundamental shift in establishing a separate criterion for Canada's most dangerous offenders. Don't put them in the mix of a criterion that applies to the overwhelming majority of offenders.
As I said, when you do that.... This is one bit of information that I think I can impart to the committee with my 43 years of experience: If you do that, if the public knows that these types of offenders are being dealt with properly, then there will be an enormous view of the public to embrace all of the rehabilitation programs and assistance for offenders to make them productive when they eventually get out, but you can't apply that to people like Paul Bernardo.