Limits Parole Reapplications for Murder Convicts

Summary#

This bill changes how parole reviews happen for people convicted of first- or second-degree murder in Canada. After the Parole Board denies, cancels, or ends parole, those offenders cannot file new applications. Instead, the Parole Board will review parole only on the schedule already set in law (“statutory time frames”) (Clause 1; CCRA s.122(4.1); Clause 2; CCRA s.123(6.1)). The bill does not change parole eligibility dates, sentences, or the criteria the Board uses.

• Applies only to first- and second-degree murder (Criminal Code s.231).
• Covers both day parole (daytime release under supervision) and full parole (supervised release in the community).
• Removes offender-initiated reapplications after a denial or a cancellation/termination of parole.
• Keeps Parole Board reviews on the legal schedule already in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
• Does not change rules for people convicted of other offences.

What it means for you#

• Households and victims

  • Fewer offender-initiated parole hearings after a denial; reviews will occur on the legal schedule set by the Act (Clauses 1–2).
  • Greater predictability on when hearings may occur, since the timing follows the statute, not offender applications (Clauses 1–2).
  • Timing: Applies once the bill becomes law; the provided text does not set a separate effective date.

• People incarcerated for first- or second-degree murder

  • After the Board denies, cancels, or ends your day parole, you cannot submit a new day parole application; the next review will occur on the statutory timeline (Clause 1; CCRA s.122(4.1)).
  • After the Board denies, cancels, or ends your full parole, you cannot submit a new full parole application; the next review will occur on the statutory timeline (Clause 2; CCRA s.123(6.1)).
  • Your parole eligibility dates and the criteria for release do not change under this bill.

• Lawyers and advocates

  • No interim applications for murder cases after a denial or a cancellation/termination; submissions would align with scheduled reviews under the Act (Clauses 1–2).

• Parole Board and corrections staff

  • Reviews for affected cases proceed on statutory schedules; no processing of offender-initiated applications after denials for these offences (Clauses 1–2).

• Other offenders (non-murder convictions)

  • No change to current application and review processes under the Act.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriations, new programs, or fees identified in the bill text (Clauses 1–2).
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.
• Administrative workload changes for the Parole Board are possible, but no quantified data is provided. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Reduces repeated, offender-initiated hearings after a denial, which can lower the number of hearings victims may face; reviews occur only on the legal schedule (Clause 1; CCRA s.122(4.1); Clause 2; CCRA s.123(6.1)).
• Brings consistency and predictability by using statutory timelines rather than ad hoc applications (Clauses 1–2).
• Keeps public-safety standards intact; it does not change eligibility dates or the criteria for release, only the timing of reviews (Clauses 1–2).
• Limits “serial applications” after denials in the most serious cases, focusing Board time on scheduled reviews (Clauses 1–2). Assumes offender-initiated applications are common after denials.

Opponents' View#

• Removes a pathway for offenders to seek earlier reconsideration if they complete programs or show progress soon after a denial; could delay reintegration even when risk has changed (Clauses 1–2). Assumes some cases improve between scheduled reviews.
• May increase custody time for some individuals if the next statutory review is far off, with possible added incarceration costs. Data unavailable. Assumes releases would otherwise have occurred earlier via application.
• Could reduce incentives to engage in programming if interim applications are not allowed after a denial (Clauses 1–2). Assumes application opportunities motivate program participation.
• Risk that cancellations/terminations for technical or short-term reasons lead to long waits before the next review, even if issues are quickly resolved (Clauses 1–2). Assumes statutory intervals are not easily adjusted.