Yes--
Evidence of meeting #55 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #55 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Oh.
Well, I can give you examples, but no, I don't have those figures. The Correctional Service of Canada has the actual figures that--
8:35 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
All right, but what is the average for women that you are aware of who are eligible for APR? Are we generally talking about two- or three-year sentences?
8:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
It would be anywhere from two to five years, generally.
8:35 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Between two and five; thank you.
Ms. Campbell, I would like to know whether this bill abolishes parole after serving one third of the sentence. You can give me a yes or no answer.
8:35 p.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No.
8:35 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Does it abolish the granting of day parole six months prior to one third of the sentence having been served?
8:35 p.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No. The regular parole regime remains in effect--eligibility dates and criteria.
8:35 p.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I have numbers for women's sentence lengths, if you are interested.
8:40 p.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I have it by admission numbers and by what we call “snapshot”. I'm not sure which you're interested in.
8:40 p.m.
Bloc
8:40 p.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The data I have show that 64% of women admitted to penitentiary custody are serving sentences of less than three years.
If you look at any one given day--a snapshot as opposed to admissions--39% of women in penitentiary are serving sentences of less than three years.
8:40 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Fine.
Ms. Campbell and Mr. Sapers. I did a quick calculation. One sixth of a three-year sentence is six months; one third, 12 months; and, two thirds, 24 months. Since the granting of day parole six months before one third of the sentence has been served is not being abolished here, it amounts to the same thing. In other words, an inmate could be released before serving one third of the sentence, after six months — which amounts to the same thing as day parole; correct?
February 15th, 2011 / 8:40 p.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, for people serving three years, the time period for eligibility is identical. What would change under the bill would be the test, the criteria, that would be applied in considering day parole.
8:40 p.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Of course, for any sentence longer than three years, there would be a difference in eligibility dates.
8:40 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Ms. Campbell.
Here is what we can assume with respect to the costs. I'm wondering whether the costs will really be that high. I won't ask you the question, because I know you cannot say, but I do question the assertion that there will be major costs associated with this, based on simple logic. For three-year sentences, there will be absolutely no change. The only difference is that, rather than being based on a paper review, the Commission will hold a face-to-face hearing with the individual. A multidisciplinary team will make an assessment.
Ms. Campbell, or rather Mr. Sapers — you are from the Correctional Service — am I mistaken? It will still be six months in the case of a three-year sentence.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Madam Mourani, summarize. You're out of time, so if you want Mr. Sapers to answer, you'd better hurry.
8:40 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
That six-month period, for a three-year sentence, will remain the same. There is no difference there. Indeed, the only difference with this bill — and it's minor — is that the procedure will be different. That said, if the inmate is not at risk of re-offending, he or she will be released after six months.
Is that right or wrong?
8:40 p.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Very quickly, first of all, the Office of the Correctional Investigator is independent of the Correctional Service of Canada. I'm not here representing the Correctional Service of Canada.
Secondly, there will be two impacts. One impact will be on the hearings that have to happen instead of the paper reviews. The other impact that will happen is that those figures, your calculation, are based on the assumption that offenders will get their hearing at their earliest eligibility date. In fact, most don't. So there's often a long gap. It's to the point, as I said earlier, that most releases from penitentiary now are happening statutorily. They're happening at SR, two-thirds into the sentence.
So your assumption would be correct if everybody got their hearing at their earliest eligibility, but that's not what's happening.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
8:40 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We had a little bit of evidence about the profile of women offenders, and we've had Mr. Lobb sort of stereotype the classic offender in a federal institution as being some sort of non-addict, non-alcoholic, clear-minded, multimillionaire--