Paul Bernardo’s prison move sparked understandable anger. Why is the corrections service denying people answers?

There might well be a legitimate reason the Correctional Service of Canada transferred notorious murderer and rapist Paul Bernardo from Millhaven maximum security penitentiary to a medium-security institution. But we don’t know what the reason is, and that’s precisely the problem.

When the news broke, the reaction was visceral and vituperative. “Paul Bernardo should rot in a maximum security prison for the rest of his miserable existence,” bellowed Premier Doug Ford. “Bernardo is a monster and he belongs in maximum security” echoed federal Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre.

These responses likely stem from fears that the transfer will jeopardize public safety, or that Bernardo will be afforded more freedom than he had in maximum security. He deserves no such reprieve, insist critics of the transfer, given the horror of his crimes.

In an effort to allay fears about public safety, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), which manages federal penitentiaries, issued a hastily composed statement in which it highlighted the extensive security measures in place at medium security institutions. And it acknowledges, “We understand that Canadians want to know reasons for such transfers.”

According to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), when placing or transferring an inmate, the CSC is expected to consider a variety of factors including public safety, inmate safety, the security of the prison and the availability of appropriate programs.

These factors might have influenced Bernardo’s transfer, but we just don’t know. That's the problem. The CSC is concealing them from us.

In its statement, the CSC stressed that it was “restricted by law” from disclosing information about offenders’ cases. That’s true: The CCRA and the Privacy Act do constrain the release of information. But only to a point.

The CCRA does permit the Correctional Service to provide to victims a summary of reasons for the transfer, if the “interest of the victim … clearly outweighs any invasion of the offender’s privacy.”

According to Tim Danson, who represents the families of girls murdered by Bernardo, CSC refused to provide him with reasons for the transfer. The Correctional Service therefore evidently concluded the interests of the victims’ families didn’t “clearly outweigh” those of Bernardo.

That's a judgment call, of course, but the CSC’s exercise of judgment is the issue here. To be sure, the CSC has a duty to protect offenders’ rights, but equally, it has a duty to respect victims and their families. And denying them important information isn’t the way to do it.

While we don't know the circumstances of this transfer, the CSC’s decision, rightly or wrongly, feeds into the sentiment often expressed by victim advocates — that the justice system values the rights of offenders over those of victims and thereby subjects them to further trauma.

Given Bernardo’s infamous reputation, the correctional service could have easily anticipated the resulting furor and had a better response. But it’s not just the victims and families who have suffered as a result of Bernardo’s crimes that are owed better treatment, it’s all victims.

The correctional service’s preference for secrecy doesn’t just re-traumatize the victims’ families; it also suggests, in the public consciousness at least, that the CSC has something to hide, and thereby contributes to distrust of the justice system.

If there’s a bright light in this dark story, it’s this: Given the public outcry, CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly will be conducting a review of the transfer. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the transparency of the decision would figure in Kelly’s discussion of the issue with Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino.

Transparency is essential to renewing trust in the system. Since the CSC chose to keep victims in the dark, the review must expose this decision, and transfer reasons generally, to the light of day.