In both cases it's a case of trusting the Parole Board of Canada has the capability of looking at a file and determining what offenders are ready to be released on conditional release, or day parole, or full parole prior to them coming to the meeting.
That is not to say the offender's testimony, the victim impact statement, and other evidence that's heard at the hearing does not make a difference or even a substantive difference, but there is a lot of pre-work that's done.
A file I saw a review panellist bring in at one parole board hearing was almost a foot thick. That's how much research they had done on the particular offender, so they know how to look and evaluate who is ready for these different types of releases.
Whether it's an inmate who's coming for their first hearing after serving a sentence, or whether it's an offender who has breached their parole or outright reoffended, in either case I believe we can trust in the capability of the parole board to know whether an immediate review should be done, or whether time should be taken for the offender to access the programs in order to make a more significant advancement on their rehabilitation program than what they have. That's simply why that provision is in there.
Why would this benefit a victim? Why subject them to a hearing when it's simply going to be a “no” anyway? That's why that discretion is there. I think the parole board has a good handle on the foundations of what's going to happen at the hearing.