I spent an afternoon reviewing Gerald Gallant’s parole file last week. The 73-year-old hitman, who confessed to 28 murders while working for the Hells Angels, believes the Parole Board of Canada is giving too much weight to his victims’ families. His complaint raises troubling questions about how our justice system balances offender rehabilitation against the lasting trauma inflicted on victims.
“The families want me to die in prison,” Gallant wrote in his recent appeal to the parole board. “I understand their pain, but after 20 years, I’m not the same person.”
Gallant’s appeal represents an unusual challenge to Canada’s victim-centered approach to parole hearings. Since the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights passed in 2015, victims and their families have gained expanded participation rights in the parole process, including the ability to present impact statements.
According to documents I obtained through access to information requests, Gallant argued that victim statements create an “emotional environment” that makes objective decision-making impossible for board members. His lawyer, Marie-Claude Bourassa, contends that while victims’ voices matter, rehabilitation progress should be the primary consideration.
“The law requires a balanced assessment,” Bourassa told me in a phone interview. “When emotional testimony overwhelms all other factors, it undermines the purpose of the parole system.”
The Parole Board firmly rejected Gallant’s arguments. In their decision, they noted that “victim considerations are legally mandated components of the risk assessment process” and that “the profound impacts of Mr. Gallant’s actions continue to reverberate through multiple communities.”
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director of the John Howard Society, explained that this case highlights the inherent tension in Canada’s correctional philosophy. “Our system is supposed to be rehabilitative, not purely punitive,” she said. “But when horrific crimes like Gallant’s are involved, finding that balance becomes incredibly difficult.”
Gallant’s criminal career spanned decades. Between 1978 and 2003, he worked as a contract killer primarily for a Hells Angels-affiliated gang in Quebec. His methodical approach to murder earned him the nickname “The Prudent” among criminal circles. In 2006, Gallant struck a plea deal, confessing to his crimes and becoming a key witness against organized crime figures.
I reviewed court transcripts where Gallant described his murders with chilling detachment. In one instance, he explained waiting in a restaurant bathroom for 45 minutes until his target arrived, then shooting the man in the back of the head while he washed his hands. “I was efficient,” he testified. “I didn’t enjoy killing, but I did it well.”
For families like the Bouchards, whose father was killed while changing a tire in 1990, Gallant’s clinical descriptions only deepen their anguish. “He talks about my father like he was just a job, not a human being,” said Marie Bouchard in her victim impact statement at Gallant’s last hearing. “Every time he applies for parole, we relive the nightmare.”
According to Statistics Canada data, approximately 28% of violent offenders serving life sentences are granted day parole on their first application. For those convicted of multiple murders, that figure drops below 5%.
Dr. Anna Matejcek, a criminologist at McGill University, points out that Gallant’s case exposes the limitations of our parole system. “We ask the impossible of parole boards,” she explained. “They must simultaneously respect victims’ trauma, ensure public safety, and recognize rehabilitation potential.”
The board’s latest decision acknowledged Gallant’s participation in rehabilitation programs and his age-related health issues but concluded that “the exceptional gravity of [his] crimes” and ongoing victim impacts justified continued incarceration.
I spoke with retired Parole Board member André Clément, who wasn’t involved in Gallant’s case but has overseen hundreds of hearings. “In my experience, board members don’t make decisions based solely on emotions,” he said. “But victim statements provide essential context about the lasting harm caused by serious crimes.”
Gallant’s case returns to the spotlight as the federal government considers further reforms to the parole system. Public Safety Canada is currently reviewing proposals that could strengthen victim participation while maintaining focus on evidence-based risk assessment.
Meanwhile, Gallant remains at a medium-security facility in Quebec. His next parole hearing is scheduled for 2024, when he will be 75 years old. The families of his 28 victims will once again prepare their statements, reliving their trauma as they have every time Gallant has sought release.
As Marie Bouchard told me, “Our life sentences don’t come with parole hearings.”
