Bill C-243, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole review), would amend the existing Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Its stated effect is to have parole reviewed on statutory time frames, rather than on an offender’s application, after certain decisions involving people serving sentences for first- or second-degree murder.
The bill would bar a further application for day parole after the Parole Board does not grant day parole following a review, or cancels or terminates parole.
It would impose the same bar on a further application for full parole.
The bar applies to people serving sentences for first- or second-degree murder, as defined in the Criminal Code.
The supplied bill text does not create a new agency or set out a new review process. Its summary describes reviews on statutory time frames, but the operative clauses provided only state that further applications may not be made.
People serving sentences for first- or second-degree murder: After the specified Board decision, you could not make a further application for the affected type of parole under these provisions.
Parole Board: The bill would limit applications it can receive from people in those circumstances. The summary says review would instead follow statutory time frames, but the clauses provided do not explain how that review would happen.
Other people and the public: The bill’s stated restrictions apply to the named murder sentences. The supplied text does not describe other changes to parole or sentencing.
The summary describes reviews on statutory time frames, but the supplied operative clauses do not establish that process or say who must start a review.
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act itself was not supplied, so current application and review rules, and how the proposed bars would interact with them, could not be verified.
The text does not explain whether any other route to a review or application would remain available.
The material does not say whether the bill has passed or when it would come into force.
A possible argument for the bill is that, after the Board refuses parole or cancels or terminates it, further decisions would follow statutory review time frames rather than new applications by the offender.
This could make the timing of later reviews depend on the statutory schedule. The supplied text does not explain the schedule or how it would operate.
The bill bars further applications but the supplied operative clauses do not spell out the alternative review process described in the summary. That leaves uncertainty about how and when a person’s case would next be considered.
A possible trade-off is less ability for an affected person to seek another review through an application. The supplied material does not explain whether other routes would be available or how long someone might wait for a scheduled review.