Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I know we're on clause-by-clause so our discussion has to be fairly narrow, but I'd like to echo what Madame Doré Lefebvre had to say in terms of .... What we're suggesting is expanding the time limits on the interval for parole is something we're doing to serve victims and she makes a good point that there are many other things that might serve victims more effectively.
But what I really want to talk about is the point that was raised by Ms. James, which is the question of discretion. It's one of the reasons I very much wanted to hear from the Parole Board. I've read through the bill probably as many times as anyone else around the table, trying to make sure that it is in fact completely discretionary for the Parole Board. I think we need to hear from the specialists to know if that is true. In some places I cannot determine that.
The second question I would ask the Parole Board—which I have heard many times while away from this table—is about some of the big restrictions on the activities of the Parole Board, which are their backlogs and budgets. Right now the law requiring a hearing every two years for something up to about 11,000 offenders is the priority by which they allocate their budget resources. Because they are statutorily required to provide an opportunity for those hearings every two years, that's the first thing they apply their resources to. They have many other things they're charged with doing, such as the pardon process and other things that have huge backlogs.
The question I would ask the Parole Board if they were here is, if we change this legislation so that what is required is four or five years, will that not in fact change their allocation of budgetary resources and therefore inevitably lengthen the period? Whether or not there is discretion, it will inevitably lengthen the period between parole hearings for all those others serving offences less than murder because they simply will have to apply their resources in ways that are dictated by the legislation.
I think we may be creating an unintended consequence by giving them an instruction that now says that instead of doing these parole hearings, they should deal with the other backlog, and the other things they have to deal with, and they should let these go for up to four or five years.
That's a question I'm very serious about that I would like to be able to ask them before I am confident that we're not having this unintended consequence. We know that their resources are constrained and we know that given the current fiscal climate and the government's view, their resources are not likely to expand. So we may in fact be doing something here that has a very big impact on the practices of the Parole Board which, despite the discretion, will in fact delay parole hearings significantly and then lead to those things I talked about before—lead to people saying, “Well, there is no need to participate in rehabilitation because I'm not going to get my hearing before I get out” and it will lead to more people being released without supervision.
I'm going to continue saying today that I take the issue of public safety on this very seriously. Most people around the table know that I spent most of my professional career working in the area of criminal justice and working in and out of prison, parole, and with police. If we had more time there are a lot of people I would like to have talk to us about what the reality of this bill will do, about what it will actually do in fact, and not the theory that we're providing discretion, but the impact it will have on Parole Board practices.