Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

2012-2013 Performance Monitoring Report

2012-2013 Performance Monitoring Report (PDF 3.28 MB) [PDF - 6.89 MB]

Download PDF Reader

Adobe Reader

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Acronyms Used in this Report

APR
Accelerated Parole Review
APRI
Accelerated Parol Review-Initial
CCRA
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
CRA
Criminal Records Act
CRIMS
Conditional Release Information Management System
CSC
Correctional Service of Canada
DP
Day Parole
ETA
Escorted Temporary Absence
FP
Full Parole
GSS
General Social Survey
LTSO
Long-Term Supervision Order
OMS
Offender Management System
PBC
Parole Board of Canada
RPM
Royal Prerogative of Mercy
RCMP
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
SR
Statutory Release
TA
Temporary Absence
UAL
Unlawfully-at-Large
UTA
Unescorted Temporary Absence
WED
Warrant Expiry Date

Note to the Reader:

Data and information for this report came from numerous sources:

  • Conditional release data was extracted from CRIMS and OMS
  • The Clemency and Pardons Division provided pardon and clemency information.
  • Financial information was provided by Financial Services.
  • The Human Resources Division provided human resources information on staff and the Chairman's Office provided information on Board members.

Minor variances may occur when presenting percentage statistics as a result of rounding.

The snapshot of the offender population was taken on April 14, 2013, to ensure all year-end data had been entered into OMS.

Highlights of 2012/13

  • 0.4% increase in the total federal offender population. The federal incarcerated population increased 2.3% (to 14,744), while the federal conditional release population decreased 2.7% (to 8,500) compared to 2011/12.
  • 18,941 reviews conducted by the Board. The number of federal reviews increased 23% (to 18,205) and the number of provincial reviews decreased 13% (to 736) compared to 2011/12.
  • 5,060 day parole release decisions. The number of federal day parole release decisions increased 9% (to 4,610), while the number of provincial day parole release decisions decreased 15% (to 450) compared to 2011/12.
  • 68% grant rate for federal day parole, three percentage points higher than the previous year.
  • 48% grant rate for provincial day parole, seven percentage points higher than the previous year.
  • 3,838 full parole release decisions. The number of federal full parole release decisions increased 10% (to 3,491), while the number of provincial full parole release decisions decreased 21% (to 347) compared to 2011/12.
  • 29% grant rate for federal full parole, six percentage points higher than the previous year.
  • 29% grant rate for provincial full parole, one percentage point lower than the previous year.
  • 2,309 residency conditions imposed on statutory release, an increase of 11% from the previous year.
  • 366 the number of offenders in the community with long-term supervision orders on April 14, 2013.
  • 98.4% of federal day parole supervision periods were completed without reoffending, a slight increase from the previous year.
  • 96.5% of federal full parole supervision periods for offenders serving determinate sentences were completed without reoffending, a small increase from the previous year.
  • 91.4% statutory release supervision periods were completed without reoffending, a small increase from the previous year.
  • 22,475 Board contacts with victims, an increase of 5% from the previous year.
  • 3,524 observers at 1,441 PBC hearings, an increase of 26% from the previous year.
  • 254 presentations made by victims at 140 hearings, an increase of 14% from the previous year.
  • 6,646 the number of decisions sent from the decision registry, an increase of 22% from the previous year.
  • 742 pardon decisions made; 82% pardons granted and 18% pardons denied.
  • 6,238 record suspension decisions made; 97% of record suspensions were ordered and 3% of record suspensions were denied.
  • 79 clemency cases in process.

Introduction

The Parole Board of Canada (PBC or "the Board"), as part of the criminal justice system, makes independent, quality conditional release and record suspension decisions and clemency recommendations. The Board contributes to the protection of society by facilitating, as appropriate, the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens.

The Board makes conditional release decisions for federal offenders, as well as for provincial offenders in provinces and territories that do not have their own provincial boards. Only the provinces of Ontario and Quebec currently have their own parole boards that make parole decisions for offenders serving sentences of less than two years.

The PBC has four programs: Conditional Release Decisions, Conditional Release Openness and Accountability, Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations, and Internal Services.

Conditional Release Decisions is the Board's largest program. It includes: the review of offenders' cases and the making of quality conditional release decisions, including appeals; provision of in-depth training on how to assess the risk of reoffending in order to assist Board members in the decision-making process; and coordination of program delivery throughout the Board and with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and other key partners.

Conditional Release Openness and Accountability is the second largest program at the Board. It focuses on the provision of information to victims and other interested parties within the community, as well as coordinating victims' and other observers' attendance at PBC hearings, providing assistance to victims in preparing their victim statements and providing access to the Decision Registry.

Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations, the third program at the Board, involves the review of record suspension and clemency applications and the rendering of record suspension decisions and clemency recommendations. The Record Suspension program, formerly the Pardon program, underwent substantial changes between 2010/11 and 2011/12.

Internal Services, although a separate program, exists to support the Board's main activities by providing procurement, accommodation, and financial management services, as well as human resources.

Since 2010/11, the Performance Monitoring Report has been structured to reflect the Board's four programs.

The report presents information using easy to read graphs as well as text and provides links to detailed statistical tables which are found in the Appendix.

To review the Board's performance summary by strategic outcome and financial expenditures, please consult the Department Performance Reports.

The Year at a Glance

Context

The Parole Board of Canada operated in a dynamic environment in 2012/13 that demanded careful assessment of criminal justice issues and community concerns to ensure alignment with the Government of Canada's outcome of a safe and secure Canada. The Board has been adapting to a series of legislative changes in the field of criminal justice, including the omnibus Bill C-10 (Safe Streets and Communities Act). In addition, the Board is facing an increasingly diverse offender population, a changing criminal profile, increased mental health needs of offenders, more frequent gang affiliations and longer histories of violence (CSC's Report on Plans and Priorities 2012-13).

Crime Rates Footnote 1

In 2012, police-reported crime in Canada continued its declining trend: crime rates decreased three percentage points in comparison with the previous year, reaching their lowest level since the 1970s. A downward trend was reported for most offences, including property crime (-3%), drug offences (-5%), robberies (-8%) and all types of assaults.

Compared to 2011, crime rates increased in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and the three territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut) in 2012. The rates either declined or remained unchanged in the remaining provinces.

Violent crime rates decreased three percentage points across the country in 2012. However, certain violent offences increased such as extortion (+11%), offences related to the use of firearms (+4%) and sexual violations against children (+3%).

The crime severity index, a measure of the severity of offences, decreased three percentage points in 2012 compared to the previous year. The crime severity index was the highest in the three territories and the lowest in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Overall, the crime severity index decreased (-3%) in census metropolitan areas in 2012. Quebec City, Guelph and Barrie had the lowest crime severity indexes in 2012, while Regina, Saskatoon and Kelowna had the highest. The western cities, however, continued reporting a decrease in the crime severity index, except for Kelowna in 2012.

The non-violent crime severity index decreased three percentage points in 2012 compared to 2011, while the violent crime severity index decreased 5%.

The crime severity index also decreased (-6%) for criminal offences committed by youth in 2012. The most common types of youth crime were theft of $5,000 and under, mischief, possession of cannabis and common assault. In 2012, 44% of youth that were charged were charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Victimization rates

In addition to the Uniform Crime Survey measuring police-reported crime, the Government of Canada administers the General Social Survey every five years, collecting information on self-reported victimization on a calendar year basis. The 2009 General Social Survey, examining self-reported victimization of Canadians in 10 provinces, concluded that the rates of victimization remained relatively stable in comparison with the previous findings in 2004.Footnote 2 Just over one quarter (26%) of Canadians over 15 years of age reported being a victim of crime in a year preceding the survey, with theft of personal property being the most common offence. Three out of ten self-reported victimizations were violent in nature.

Younger Canadians (15-24 years of age) reported higher rates of violent victimization than older Canadians (over 55 years of age), despite being more satisfied with their personal safety from crime. Older Canadians, on the other hand, were more likely to report a violent incident to the police than young Canadians (46% and 28% respectively).Footnote 3

The 2009 survey also reported that 39% of Canadians used a crime prevention method to protect themselves from crime. The majority of Canadians who used a crime prevention method were previously victimized.

Almost a quarter of Canadians reported living in the neighborhoods, where issues of social disorder, including vandalism, drug use, prostitution and public intoxication were reported as a problem.

While the survey remarked on fluctuations in the victimization rate based on offence type, age, sex and geographical location, the majority of the public across the demographics (93%) reported feeling satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their personal safety from crime. Specifically, feeling safe meant not being afraid when walking alone at night in their neighbourhood or using public transportation, including waiting for the bus or a train after dark. Most Canadians also stated that they felt safe in their homes at night.

The rates of victimization of Aboriginal people in Canada were examined separately for Aboriginals living in the Canadian provinces and those living in the territories. According to the 2009 GSS survey, the rates of self-reported victimization among Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces continued to exceed those of the non-Aboriginal population: 37% of Aboriginal people reported being victims of crime compared to 26% of the non-Aboriginal population. Footnote 4

Forty-one percent (41%) of all the incidents self-reported by Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces were violent; sexual assaults accounted for approximately one-third of all violent incidents. Aboriginal women were three times more likely than non-Aboriginal women to report being a victim of sexual violence. Incidents involving violent spousal abuse involving an Aboriginal woman were more likely to be reported to the police compared to incidents involving a non-Aboriginal victim, partly due to a higher frequency of spousal abuse in the Aboriginal communities and more severe forms of violence and injuries (Ibid.). The findings also indicated that the severity of spousal violence had been increasing with the frequency of incidents.

The majority of all violent incidents reported by Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces were more likely to be related to alcohol or substance abuse and less likely to involve a weapon compared to violent incidents involving the non-Aboriginal population. On average, about one-third of violent incidents had been reported to the police.

The rate of victimization of Aboriginal people in the territories was 34%, slightly lower than the rate of victimization of Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces, 37%. However, more incidents in the territories involved violence (46%) compared to the incidents in the Canadian provinces (41%).

Similarly to the victimization rates of Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces, the majority of self-reported violent incidents of Aboriginal people in the territories were related to alcohol or drug use. Footnote 5

Public confidence in the criminal justice system

The 2009 General Social Survey demonstrated that while Canadians were satisfied overall with their safety in their own neighbourhoods; however public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system remained relatively low. The majority of Canadians (62%) believed that the level of crime in their neighbourhoods had remained the same in the last five years, while 26% believed that crime had increased.

General perceptions were that the police, the courts and the prison system were doing generally good or average job.

Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces and territories had generally favourable perceptions of the local police services in relation to aspects covered by the 2009 survey. However, they were less likely than non-Aboriginal Canadians to state that the police treated people fairly and responded promptly to calls. When compared to non-Aboriginal Canadians, Aboriginal people were less likely to have favourable opinions of the police, the courts and the prison system.

Aboriginal people across Canada, as well as the non-Aboriginal population, had less favourable opinions of the criminal courts than of the local police, particularly in relation to the duration of the process, as well as helping the victims of crime.

Previous contacts with the criminal justice system had a significant impact on how Canadians perceived the services provided by the criminal justice partners. Overall, those who had contacts with the police or the criminal courts at some point in their lives prior to the survey were more critical of them than those without personal experience.

In relation to the Parole Board of Canada, social perceptions continued to be that the system had released the wrong individuals, and conditional release programs remained a controversial issue for at least a third of Canadians. Sixty percent (60%) of Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces, 58% of Aboriginal people in the territories, as well as 62% of non-Aboriginal Canadians stated that the prison and parole system did a good job of releasing offenders who will not commit a new crime. Slightly fewer of them agreed that the system was doing a good job supervising offenders under supervision.

Legislative and Policy Changes

In 2012/13, the Government of Canada continued fulfilling its commitment to promoting a peaceful and just society by focusing on its law and order agenda. As in the previous year, 2012/13 was characterized by a series of legislative reforms in the area of criminal justice, with a special emphasis on offender accountability and responsibility, drug offences, and crimes committed against children.

At the end of 2011/12, Bill C-10 (An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts (Criminal Records Act) (Safe Streets and Communities Act)) received Royal Assent. An act to amend the CRA came into force the same fiscal year on March 23, 2012.

An act to amend the CCRA came into force on June 13, 2012. The changes were as follows:

  • the legal name of the National Parole Board was changed to the Parole Board of Canada;
  • further references to the protection of society were made paramount in conditional release decision-making;
  • “least restrictive measures” were replaced with “necessary and proportionate to support the purpose of conditional release”;
  • the maximum number of full-time Board members that can be appointed was increased to 60 from 45;
  • day parole definition was revised to ‘each night or at another specified interval';
  • the waiting period for re-application for a day or full parole following a negative Board decision was increased from six months to one year;
  • withdrawal of an application for parole was restricted to 14 calendar days prior to a review, unless the Board is satisfied that the reasons fall outside the offender's control;
  • victim's right to present a statement at a hearing was entrenched in law, including disclosure of reasons for offender's UTA decision and a waiver;
  • ETA decisions were included as part of the Decision Registry;
  • periods for detention referrals were further clarified for offenders who have committed sexual offences involving a child;
  • suspension of a parole or statutory release for offenders who receive new custodial sentences became automatic;
  • the Board was authorized to impose residency conditions to prevent offences related to organized crime.

In addition, some of the Board's processes were transformed as a result of the 2012 budget measures, Bill C-38 (the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act). The first year implementation measures included performing a portion of reviews by video conferencing, changing some panel reviews to office reviews and reducing the decision making quorum for certain types of reviews.

In 2012/13, a number of new crime bills (C-479, C-483, C-51, C-478 and C-54) were introduced in Parliament with a purpose to amend the CCRA, the Criminal Code and the National Defense Act. Additionally, the Minister of Justice announced the Government's commitment to pass a Victims' Bill of Rights later this year.

Implications for the Board

The federal government's law and order agenda and focus on strengthening the security of Canadians have important implications for the PBC. Newly introduced bills will have either an immediate or gradual impact on the Board's workload. The Board responded to new legislation by updating its policy and regulations and integrating them into its operations across Canada, including modifying data collection methods.

In relation to the Conditional Release Decisions program, there were a number of C-10 related provisions which affected the Board's operations in 2012/13. The majority of changes were in specific areas, such as increasing waiting periods for reapplication for parole after a negative decision, limiting offenders' ability to withdraw parole applications before the scheduled hearings, making suspension of conditional release supervision periods automatic for those who receive new custodial sentences and authorizing the Board to impose residency conditions to prevent offences related to organized crime.

Additionally, the changes to the Criminal Code and the CCRA in 2012/13 resulted in the changes, where non-violent offences, as well as several new offences, were added to Schedule I and defined as violent. Appropriate adjustments to the database and statistical tools had to be implemented.

In respect to the Conditional Release Openness and Accountability program, the implementation of a number of C-10 provisions affected the information services provided by the PBC in 2012/13. Increased public awareness and various campaigns to promote victim rights by the Government of Canada may have contributed to the increases in the number of PBC contacts with victims, victims presentations at hearings and decisions requested from the Decision Registry by victims.

The Clemency and Record Suspension Division, along with processing record suspensions applications under the new CRA legislation, continued processing pardon applications received before March 23, 2012 under the former CRA legislation.

Program Delivery Context

Offender Population

(Tables 1-15)

Offender Population Trends

The Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada use the following definitions in reporting offender population information to ensure consistency:

Incarcerated: includes offenders serving federal sentences in penitentiaries and in provincial facilities, those housed as inmates in Community Correctional Centres (as distinguished from conditionally released offenders), and those temporarily absent from the institution on some form of temporary release (Temporary Absence or Work Release). Footnote 6

Conditional Release: includes those federal offenders conditionally released on day parole, full parole and statutory release, and those on long-term supervision orders including those paroled for deportation and temporary detainees whether detained in a penitentiary or a provincial jail.

It is important to note that the offender population usually mirrors trends in crime rates and the crime severity index, with the effect being seen approximately two years later. While the crime rates and the crime severity index have been decreasing over the past five years, the offender population has increased. This pattern indicates that there are more complex events at play, which the crime rates analysis alone cannot sufficiently explain. Introduction of minimum mandatory sentencing, longer sentences for certain offences, and variances in admissions and releases due to legislative changes all play a role.

Figure 1. Federal Offender Population (as of April 14, 2013)

Federal Offender Population

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the federal offender population by type, incarcerated and conditional release, for the period from 2002/03 to 2012/13. Incarcerated. Year 2003/04: 12,413. Year 2004/05: 12,623. Year 2005/06: 12,671. Year 2006/07: 13,171. Year 2007/08: 13,582. Year 2008/09: 13,289. Year 2009/10: 13,531. Year 2010/11: 14,219. Year 2011/12: 14,419. Year 2012/13: 14,744. Conditional release. Year 2003/04: 8,339. Year 2004/05: 8,218. Year 2005/06: 8,365. Year 2006/07: 8,449. Year 2007/08: 8,434. Year 2008/09: 8,716. Year 2009/10: 8,709. Year 2010/11: 8,644. Year 2011/12: 8,737. Year 2012/13: 8,500.

  • On April 14, 2013, the total federal offender population had increased slightly to 23,244 (+0.4%) compared to the previous year (April 15, 2012). A significant increase in the federal incarcerated offender population (+2.3%) was to a large extent offset by a significant decrease in the federal conditional release population (-2.7%). As a result, the proportion of federal offenders who were incarcerated increased (to 63%) in 2012/13.
  • Over the ten-year period between 2003/04 and 2012/13, the federal incarcerated offender population increased 19%; the federal conditional release offender population increased 2%.
  • Ten-year trends (2002/03-2012/13) indicate that the increase in the total federal offender population was driven primarily by the increase in the federal incarcerated offender population. The trends show that the federal incarcerated offender population has been increasing at a much faster pace than the federal conditional release offender population. In the last ten years, the annual increase in the federal incarcerated offender population averaged 1.9%, compared to the 0.5% annual increase in the federal conditional release offender population.

The annual increases in the federal incarcerated and conditional release populations usually mirror each other. In the 1990s, the increases in the federal incarcerated offender population as a rule were followed by similar increases in the federal conditional release offender population approximately three years later. In the 2000s, the increases in the federal incarcerated offender population were followed by increases in the federal conditional release population two years later. (This difference is possibly related to shorter average sentences when compared to 20 years ago). The legislative changes in 2011/12 and in 2012/13 also affected these patterns. In 2011/12, the increase in the conditional release population had been smaller than expected. And in 2012/13, the federal conditional release population decreased.

Figure 2. Annual Changes in the Federal Incarcerated and Conditional Release Populations

Annual Changes in the Federal Incarcerated and Conditional Release Populations

The figure is in the form of chart lines, showing annual changes (in percentages) in the federal incarcerated and conditional release populations for the period between 1991/92 and 2012/13. The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that the annual changes in the federal incarcerated offender population are usually followed by the respective changes in the federal conditional release population approximately 2-3 years later.

In 2012/13, the decrease in the conditional release population was larger than projected by the decrease in federal admissions two years earlier. As the total number of federal admissions decreased modestly (-0.2%) in 2010/11, it was expected that the federal conditional release offender population would either decrease slightly or remain relatively unchanged in 2012/13. However, the conditional release population decreased substantially (-2.7%), while the incarcerated population increased (+2.3%).

The decreases in the federal conditional release population and the increases in the federal incarcerated offender population were reported in three out of five regions.

Figure 3. Federal Incarcerated and Conditional Release Offender Populations (as of April 14, 2013)

Federal Incarcerated and Conditional Release Offender Populations

The graph is in the form of clustered columns, showing the federal incarcerated and conditional release populations by region in 2012/13, while data labels indicating changes from the previous year (in percentages). Atlantic. Incarcerated: +14%; conditional release: -9%. Quebec. Incarcerated: +4%; conditional release: -2%. Ontario. Incarcerated: -4%; conditional release: -4%. Prairies. Incarcerated: +2%; conditional release: +2%. Pacific. Incarcerated: +5%; conditional release: -5%.

  • In the Atlantic, Quebec and Pacific regions, the federal incarcerated offender populations increased, while their federal conditional release populations decreased. In the Prairie region, both federal incarcerated and conditional release offender populations increased, while in the Ontario region, both federal incarcerated and conditional release offender populations decreased.
  • In 2012/13, the total federal offender population increased in the Atlantic (+5%), Prairie (+2%), Quebec (+1%) and Pacific (+1%) regions, and decreased in the Ontario region (-4%) when compared to 2011/12.
  • Across Canada, the day parole population decreased (-2.3%) in 2012/13, as did the full parole population (-7.5%), while the statutory release population increased (+1.0%) compared to the previous year. The long-term supervision population increased (+9.6%).

Large decreases in the full parole population in 2011/12 (-9%) and 2012/13 (-7%) led to a significant change in the profile of the federal conditional release population. In 2012/13, for the first time in the last 20 years, the statutory release population surpassed the full parole population. In 2003/04, federal offenders on full parole comprised 50% of all federal offenders on conditional release; in 2012/13, they comprised 40%. The proportion of federal offenders on statutory release increased from 35% in 2003/04 to 41% in 2012/13.

Figure 4. Federal Conditional Release Population

Federal Conditional Release Population

The figure is in the form of chart lines, showing the federal full parole and statutory release offender populations for the period between 2003/04 and 2012/13. The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that the federal full parole population has been decreasing over the last ten years, while the federal statutory release population has been increasing and in 2012/13 it surpassed the federal full parole population for the first time.

  • The provincial conditional release population declined 2% in 2012/13: the day parole population decreased (1 offender), as did the full parole population (2 offenders). The decreases in the day and full parole populations were reported in the Atlantic and Prairie regions, while these populations increased in the Pacific region.

Figure 5. The Federal Incarcerated and Conditional Release Populations by Aboriginal and Race (as of April 14, 2013)

Federal Incarcerated and Conditional Release Populations by Aboriginal and Racen

There are two pie charts (broken) grouped in one image, comparing proportions (percentages) of federal incarcerated and conditional release populations by Aboriginal and Race. Pie chart 1. Incarcerated: White, 58%, Aboriginal, 23%, Asian, 4%, Black, 10%, Other, 5%. Pie chart 2. Conditional Release: White, 67%, Aboriginal, 16%, Asian, 5%, Black, 8%, Other, 4%.

  • Over the five-year period between 2008/09 and 2012/13, the federal incarcerated population increased for Aboriginal (+29%), Asian (+73%), Black (+36%) offenders and offenders of Other race (+5%), while it remained relatively unchanged for White offenders. As a result, the proportion of Aboriginal inmates increased to 23%; the proportion of Asian inmates increased to 4%, and the proportion of Black inmates increased to 10%. The respective proportions decreased for White offenders to 58% and offenders of Other race to 5%.
  • The conditional release populations during the same time period demonstrated similar trends, where the proportions of federal offenders on conditional release increased for Aboriginal (+3%), Black (+1%) and Asian (+0.3%) offenders, while they decreased for White offenders (-3%) and offenders of Other category (-2%) when compared to 2008/09.
  • Over the last five years, Aboriginal and Black offenders as a proportion of the federal offender population were more likely to be incarcerated than on conditional release, whereas White and Asian offenders were more likely to be on conditional release than incarcerated.
  • In 2012/13, male offenders represented 96% of the federal incarcerated population and 94% of the federal conditional release population; whereas female offenders represented 4% of the incarcerated population and 6% of the conditional release population.
  • Aboriginal women accounted for 33% of all female inmates and 21% of women on conditional release, as compared to Aboriginal men who accounted for 23% of all male inmates and 16% of men on conditional release in 2012/13. These proportions were the highest in the Prairie region, where 45% of male inmates and 57% of female inmates were Aboriginal; while 34% of male offenders and 43% of female offenders on conditional release were Aboriginal.

Federal Offender Profiles

Figure 6. Offence Profile of the Total Federal Offender Population

Offence Profile of the Total Federal Offender Population

The graph is in the form of 100% stacked columns, showing proportions (percentages) of the total federal offender population by offence type: murder, schedule I-sex, schedule I-non-sex, schedule II, and non-schedule offences, for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Year 2008/09. Murder: 19; schedule I-sex: 12; schedule-I-non-sex: 37; schedule II: 17; non-schedule: 14. Year 2009/10. Murder: 20; schedule I-sex: 13; schedule-I-non-sex: 36; schedule II: 17; non-schedule: 14. Year 2010/11. Murder: 20; schedule I-sex: 12; schedule-I-non-sex: 35; schedule II: 16; non-schedule: 17. Year 2011/12. Murder: 20; schedule I-sex: 13; schedule-I-non-sex: 35; schedule II: 16; non-schedule: 17. Year 2012/13. Murder: 20; schedule I-sex: 13; schedule-I-non-sex: 35; schedule II: 16; non-schedule: 15.

  • On April 14, 2013, 20% of federal offenders were serving sentences for murder, 13% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 35% were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, 16% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 15% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
  • Over the last five years, proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for murder and schedule I-sex offences have been relatively stable.
  • The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences increased slightly in the last year 0.8% (from 34.6% in 2011/12 to 35.4% in 2012/13), after declining 2% since 2008/09. The increase in 2012/13 was to a large extent accounted for by the 0.5% increase in the proportion of federal admissions of these offenders two years earlier.
  • The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences has remained relatively unchanged in the last three years.
  • The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences has decreased 1.3% (from 16.7% in 2011/12 to 15.4% in 2012/13) after having reported a significant increase in 2010/11. The increase was possibly related to Bill C-25 (Truth in Sentencing Act), as more non-scheduled offenders had been admitted to federal custody that year. Since then, the proportion seems to be stabilizing. As the proportion of federal admissions of these offenders decreased 1.7% in 2011/12, decreases were noted in the proportions of these offenders in 2012/13 for the federal incarcerated as well as for the federal day parole, full parole and statutory release populations.

To better analyse the offence profile of the federal offender population, a more detailed review is provided below.

Figure 7. Offence Profile of the Federal Incarcerated Population

Offence Profile of the Federal Incarcerated Population

The graph is in the form of 100% stacked columns, showing proportions (percentages) of the federal incarcerated population by offence type: murder, schedule I-sex, schedule I-non-sex, schedule II, and non-schedule offences, for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Year 2008/09. Murder: 19; schedule I-sex: 14; schedule-I-non-sex: 41; schedule II: 11; non-schedule: 14. Year 2009/10. Murder: 20; schedule I-sex: 14; schedule-I-non-sex: 40; schedule II: 12; non-schedule: 14. Year 2010/11. Murder: 19; schedule I-sex: 14; schedule-I-non-sex: 39; schedule II: 11; non-schedule: 17. Year 2011/12. Murder: 19; schedule I-sex: 14; schedule-I-non-sex: 38; schedule II: 13; non-schedule: 16. Year 2012/13. Murder: 19; schedule I-sex: 14; schedule-I-non-sex: 38; schedule II: 13; non-schedule: 15.

  • On April 14, 2013, 19% of federal incarcerated offenders were serving sentences for murder, 14% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 38% were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, 13% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 15% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
  • In the last five years, the proportions have remained relatively stable for incarcerated offenders serving sentences for murder and schedule I-sex offences.
  • The proportion of the federal incarcerated population serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences increased half a percentage point in 2012/13, after having been on a steady decline over the previous five years. The increase corresponds to the 0.5% increase in the proportion of federal admissions of these offenders two year earlier (in 2010/11).
  • The proportion of the federal incarcerated offender population serving sentences for schedule II offences increased half a percentage point in 2012/13. As the proportion of federal admissions of these offenders decreased 1.1% two years earlier (in 2010/11), the increase in 2012/13 was attributed to the abolition of the APR process, which resulted in smaller proportions of these offenders released on discretionary release and larger proportions remaining incarcerated until being released on statutory release.
  • The proportion of the federal incarcerated population serving sentences for non-scheduled offences decreased one percentage point in 2012/13 after it had increased sharply in 2010/11 by three percentage points. The increase in 2010/11 may have been related to Bill C-25 (Truth in Sentencing Act).

The changes in the conditional release population were different than those seen in the incarcerated population in 2012/13. Of particular importance were the changes affecting the former APR-eligible offenders, those first-time federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences. In 2011/12 (the first post-APR year), the proportions of federal offenders who graduated from day to full parole decreased for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (-6.6%), while the proportions increased for those whose day parole supervisions periods were continued (+4.4%) and who graduated from day parole to statutory release (+3.1%) when compared to 2010/11. The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences who graduated from day to full parole decreased (-3.2%) in 2011/12, while the proportions increased for those whose day parole supervision periods were continued (+3.0%) and who graduated from day parole to statutory release (+6.4%). As a result, the proportions of offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences decreased significantly on full parole and increased on statutory release in 2011/12. Due to the effect size of these groups, the proportions of other offenders were affected as a result. Some of these trends persisted in 2012/13.

Figure 8. Offence Profile of the Federal Day Parole Population

Offence Profile of the Federal Day Parole Population

The graph is in the form of 100% stacked columns, showing proportions (percentages) of the federal day parole population by offence type: murder, schedule I-sex, schedule I-non-sex, schedule II, and non-schedule offences, for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Year 2008/09. Murder: 23; schedule I-sex: 6; schedule-I-non-sex: 28; schedule II: 28; non-schedule: 15. Year 2009/10. Murder: 22; schedule I-sex: 6; schedule-I-non-sex: 28; schedule II: 30; non-schedule: 13. Year 2010/11. Murder: 20; schedule I-sex: 5; schedule-I-non-sex: 26; schedule II: 29; non-schedule: 20. Year 2011/12. Murder: 20; schedule I-sex: 7; schedule-I-non-sex: 26; schedule II: 29; non-schedule: 18. Year 2012/13. Murder: 21; schedule I-sex: 7; schedule-I-non-sex: 26; schedule II: 29; non-schedule: 17.

  • In 2012/13, the proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex and schedule I-non-sex offences on day parole remained relatively stable in comparison with the previous year.
  • The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences on day parole increased 0.8% (from 28.6% in 2011/12 to 29.4% in 2012/13). Following the 1.1% decrease in the proportion of federal admissions of these offenders two years earlier (2010/11), it was expected that the proportion of these offenders on day parole would decrease as well. However, it increased. This could be attributed to the APR-related changes that persisted into 2012/13. A larger proportion of these offenders reached their regular day parole eligibility dates in 2012/13 and were released on regular day parole (+2.6%) compared to the previous year. In addition, larger proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences had their day parole supervision periods continued (+8.6%) rather than graduating from day to full parole (-4.8%) in 2012/13 when compared to 2011/12.
  • The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences on day parole decreased by one and a half percentage points in 2012/13.
  • In 2012/13, the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for murder on day parole increased 0.7% from the previous year. The increase was related more to the decrease in the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences in 2012/13, rather than to an increase in the actual number of offenders serving sentences for murder, which increased by 11 (from 249 in 2011/12 to 260 in 2012/13).

Figure 9. Offence Profile of the Federal Full Parole Population

Offence Profile of the Federal Full Parole Population

The graph is in the form of 100% stacked columns, showing proportions (percentages) of the federal full parole population by offence type: murder, schedule I-sex, schedule I-non-sex, schedule II, and non-schedule offences, for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Year 2008/09. Murder: 36; schedule I-sex: 5; schedule-I-non-sex: 15; schedule II: 35; non-schedule: 10. Year 2009/10. Murder: 37; schedule I-sex: 4; schedule-I-non-sex: 14; schedule II: 35; non-schedule: 10. Year 2010/11. Murder: 37; schedule I-sex: 4; schedule-I-non-sex: 12; schedule II: 32; non-schedule: 15. Year 2011/12. Murder: 41; schedule I-sex: 4; schedule-I-non-sex: 13; schedule II: 29; non-schedule: 13. Year 2012/13. Murder: 44; schedule I-sex: 5; schedule-I-non-sex: 14; schedule II: 26; non-schedule: 11.

  • In 2012/13, the proportion of federal offenders on full parole serving sentences for schedule II offences decreased 3.7% (from 29.3% in 2011/12 to 25.6% in 2012/13). The 1.1% decrease in the proportion of federal admissions of these offenders two years earlier was compounded by decreases in the proportions of these offenders released on full parole (-4.2%) and who graduated from day to full parole (-4.8%) in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12.
  • The proportion of federal offenders on full parole serving sentences for non-scheduled offences decreased 1.9% (from 12.9% in 2011/12 to 11.0% in 2012/13). Two things may have contributed to this decrease. The proportion of federal admissions of offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences had decreased 1.7% in 2011/12, paralleling decreases in the proportions of these offenders on other types of supervision and in incarceration. However, the decrease in the proportion of these offenders on full parole was more pronounced than other decreases. This was largely related to the abolition of the APR process, resulting in a smaller proportion of these offenders graduating from day to full parole (-1.7%) in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12, which had contributed to a larger decrease than forecast by the number of federal admissions.
  • The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences on full parole increased 1.2% in 2012/13, which was largely inflated by the decreases in the proportions of offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-schedule offences. The actual increase was rather small: seven more offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences were on full parole in 2012/13 when compared to 2011/12.
  • The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences on full parole increased one percentage point in 2012/13. Federal admissions of these offenders were relatively unchanged in 2010/11, however, a slightly higher proportion of these offenders graduated from day to full parole (+3.9%) in 2012/13 compared to the previous year. In addition, the increase was also inflated by the decreases in the proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences on full parole.
  • The increase in the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for murder on full parole was almost entirely caused by the decreases in the proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences in 2012/13. The actual number remained unchanged: 1,503 federal offenders were serving sentences for murder on full parole in 2011/12 as well as in 2012/13.

Figure 10. Offence Profile of the Statutory Release Population

Offence Profile of the Statutory Release Population

The graph is in the form of 100% stacked columns, showing proportions (percentages) of the statutory release population by offence type: schedule I-sex, schedule I-non-sex, schedule II, and non-schedule offences, for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Year 2008/09. Schedule I-sex: 12; schedule-I-non-sex: 54; schedule II: 14; non-schedule: 19. Year 2009/10. Schedule I-sex: 15; schedule-I-non-sex: 53; schedule II: 13; non-schedule: 19. Year 2010/11. Schedule I-sex: 15; schedule-I-non-sex: 51; schedule II: 13; non-schedule: 21. Year 2011/12. Schedule I-sex: 15; schedule-I-non-sex: 49; schedule II: 14; non-schedule: 22. Year 2012/13. Schedule I-sex: 14; schedule-I-non-sex: 48; schedule II: 17; non-schedule: 21.

One of the effects of the abolition of the APR process in 2010/11 was that larger proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences either waived their full parole reviews and remained incarcerated until reaching their legislated statutory release dates or were released on day parole and subsequently graduated to statutory release. In the first post-APR year, 2011/12, the proportions of offenders serving sentences for these types of offences decreased on full parole and increased on statutory release. In 2012/13, the trends persisted for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences, but some changes were reported for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.

  • In 2012/13, the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences on statutory release increased 2.5% (from 14.1% in 2011/12 to 16.5% in 2012/13), following the upward trend from the previous year. The increase was attributed to the ongoing post-APR effect, as larger proportions of schedule II offenders graduated from day parole to statutory release (+9.3%) and a slightly higher proportion was released on statutory release (+0.2%) in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12.
  • The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences on statutory release decreased 1.4% (from 22.2% in 2011/12 to 20.8% in 2012/13). This was related in part to the 1.5% decrease in the proportion of federal admissions of these offenders in 2011/12, which offset the expected increase in the number of these offenders due to the abolition of the APR.
  • The decrease in the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences on statutory release was to a large extent inflated by the increase in the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences on statutory release in 2012/13. The actual decrease was insignificant: 4 fewer federal offenders were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences on statutory release in 2012/13 compared to the previous year.
  • The proportion of federal offenders on statutory release serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences decreased 0.5% (from 14.7% in 2011/12 to 14.2% in 2012/13). The decrease was possibly related to the fact that larger proportions of these offenders had their day parole supervision periods continued (+1.8%) and graduated from day parole to full parole (+3.9%) in 2012/13 compared to the previous year, offsetting the modest increase in the proportion of these offenders released on statutory release (+0.2%).

Federal Admissions

(Tables 16-23)

Figure 11. Federal Admissions to Institutions

Federal Admissions to Institutions

The graph is in the form of 100% stacked columns, showing the number, as well as visualising the proportions, of federal admissions to institutions by admission type: on warrants of committal, due to revocations and a category ‘other', for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Year 2008/09. Warrants of committal: 4,825. Revocations: 3,265. Other: 171. Year 2009/10. Warrants of committal: 5,217. Revocations: 3,043. Other: 103. Year 2010/11. Warrants of committal: 5,423. Revocations: 2,787. Other: 133. Year 2011/12. Warrants of committal: 5,118. Revocations: 2,684. Other: 133. Year 2012/13. Warrants of committal: 4,999. Revocations: 2,955. Other: 140. The chart is followed by a note: [The category ‘Other'] includes transfers from foreign countries, exchange of services etc.

*Includes transfers from foreign countries, exchange of services, etc.

  • The total number of federal admissions to institutions in 2012/13 increased 2% (to 8,094) in comparison with the previous year. Federal admissions on warrants of committal decreased 2% (to 4,999), whereas admissions due to revocations increased 10% (to 2,955).
  • Compared to the previous year, federal admissions on warrants of committal decreased while admissions due to revocations increased in three regions in 2012/13, the Ontario (-4%; +8%), Prairie (-5%; +23%) and Pacific (-4%; +1%) regions. In the Atlantic region federal admissions on warrants of committal and admissions due to revocations increased (+8%; +5%), while in the Quebec region, both federal admissions on warrants of committal and admissions due to revocations decreased (-1%; -2%).
  • In 2012/13, federal admissions due to revocations increased significantly in the Prairie region (+23%), contributing to the increase in the total number of admissions in the region (to 2,677). The Prairie region accounted for 39% of all admissions due to revocations in Canada in 2012/13.
  • Over the five-year period between 2008/09 and 2012/13, Aboriginal offenders were the least likely to be admitted on initial warrants of committal, and were the most likely to be admitted on all types of revocations. White offenders were the most likely to be admitted on a repeat warrant of committal.
  • During the same time period, female offenders were more likely to be admitted on initial warrants of committal and on revocations for a breach of condition than male offenders, and were less likely to be admitted on repeat warrants of committal and on revocations with a charge or an offence.
  • In 2012/13, the increase in the total number of federal admissions was driven primarily by federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (+5%) and offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (+2%). The numbers of federal admissions of other types of offenders either decreased (murder and schedule I-sex) or remained relatively unchanged (non-scheduled).

Figure 12. Average Age at Admission on Initial Warrants of Committal between 2008/09 and 2012/13(%)

Average Age at Admission on Initial Warrants of Committal (%)

The figure is in the form of chart lines, showing proportions (percentages) of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal by age and race averaged over the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that over the last five years, federal admissions of offenders of 18-29 years of age peaked for all races and gradually decrease with age. Within the 18-29 age group, Black offenders had the highest proportion of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal, followed by Aboriginal offenders, Asian offenders and White offenders.

  • Over the last five years (from 2008/09 to 2012/13), the average age of federal offenders at admission on initial warrants of committal has been decreasing. The proportion of admissions of federal offenders aged between 18-29 on initial warrants of committal increased from 46.9% in 2008/09 to 48.5% in 2012/13.
  • Black offenders aged between 18 and 29 years of age constituted the highest proportion of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal in the last five years (at 65.5%), while White offenders had the lowest proportion (at 40.5%).

Federal Releases

(Tables 24-40)

This section discusses federal releases of offenders directly from institutions and graduations of offenders from federal supervision periods. Federal releases directly from institutions include releases on federal supervision periods, as well as releases upon completion of the offender's sentence: 1) federal releases from institutions on day parole; 2) federal releases from institutions on full parole; 3) federal releases from institutions on statutory release; 4) federal releases at warrant expiry; 5) federal releases at warrant expiry with a long-term supervision order; 6) other types of federal releases such as transfers to foreign countries, releases when the offender died etc.

Graduations from federal supervision periods include: 1) day parole continued; 2) graduations from day parole to full parole; 3) graduations from day parole to statutory release; 4) graduations from federal supervision periods to long-term supervision orders upon reaching warrant expiry date.

In this section, federal releases and graduations are discussed together to demonstrate how the Board uses discretionary release to facilitate gradual reintegration of offenders into society. As a result, the data was merged for some charts and tables to show a complete picture of releases.

Figure 13. Federal Releases from Institutions and Graduations from Federal Supervision Periods

Federal Releases from Institutions and Graduations from Federal Supervision Periods

The graph is in the form of 100% stacked bar, showing the numbers, as well as visualising the proportions, of federal releases from institutions and graduations from federal supervision periods by type of release/graduation: day parole from institutions, day parole continued, full parole from institutions, graduations from day parole to full parole, statutory release from institutions, graduations from day parole to statutory release and a category ‘other', for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Year 2008/09. DP from Institutions: 2,132. DP Continued: 869. FP from Institutions: 221. DP to FP: 1,267. SR from Institutions: 5,764. DP to SR: 456. Other: 380. Year 2009/10. DP from Institutions: 2,136. DP Continued: 846. FP from Institutions: 176. DP to FP: 1,211. SR from Institutions: 5,552. DP to SR: 480. Other: 355. Year 2010/11. DP from Institutions: 2,056. DP Continued: 881. FP from Institutions: 150. DP to FP: 1,279. SR from Institutions: 5,094. DP to SR: 470. Other: 363. Year 2011/12. DP from Institutions: 1,848. DP Continued: 887. FP from Institutions: 128. DP to FP: 863. SR from Institutions: 5,325. DP to SR: 535. Other: 351. Year 2012/13. DP from Institutions: 1,854. DP Continued: 1,217. FP from Institutions: 119. DP to FP: 896. SR from Institutions: 5,552. DP to SR: 633. Other: 355. The chart is followed by a note: [Other releases] include releases at warrant expiry, at warrant expiry with a long-term supervision order, graduations from a federal supervision period to a long-term supervision order upon reaching warrant expiry, death, transfers to foreign countries etc.

*Includes releases from institutions at warrant expiry, at warrant expiry with a long-term supervision order, graduations from a federal supervision period to a long-term supervision order upon reaching warrant expiry, death, transfers to foreign countries, etc.

  • In 2012/13, federal releases directly from institutions increased 3% to 7,862 compared to 2011/12. Graduations from federal supervision periods increased 20% to 2,764.
  • Federal releases from institutions and graduations from federal supervision periods increased in the Quebec (+2%; +22%), Ontario (+2%; +10%) and Prairie (+10%; +34%) regions, while in the Atlantic region federal releases decreased (-6%) and graduations increased (+9%), as they did in the Pacific region (-1%; +15%) compared to 2011/12.
  • Over the last five years between 2008/09 to 2012/13, Aboriginal offenders were the most likely to be released directly from institutions on statutory release and at warrant expiry, as well as at warrant expiry with a long-term supervision order, and the least likely to be released on full parole or to graduate from day parole to full parole. Asian offenders were the most likely to be released directly from institutions on day and full parole and to graduate from day parole to full parole.
  • Over the last five years, female offenders were more likely to be released from institutions on day and full parole and graduate from day parole to full parole and less likely to be released on statutory release and at warrant expiry than male offenders. Female offenders were also more likely than male offenders to have their day parole supervision periods continued and graduate from day parole to statutory release.
  • When compared to 2011/12, federal releases from institutions on full parole decreased (-7%) in 2012/13 and increased on statutory release (+4%). Federal releases from institutions on day parole remained relatively unchanged (+0.3%), however the number of day parole supervision periods that were continued increased (+37%) as did graduations from day parole to statutory release (+18%).

Figure 14. Graduations from Federal Supervision Periods

Graduations from Federal Supervision Periods

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the number of graduations from federal supervision periods by the type of graduation: day parole to full parole and day parole to statutory release as well as the number of day parole supervision periods continued, for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Day parole continued. Year 2008/09: 869. Year 2009/10: 846. Year 2010/11: 881. Year 2011/12: 887. Year 2012/12: 1,217. Day parole to full parole. Year 2008/09: 1,267. Year 2009/10: 1,211. Year 2010/11: 1,279. Year 2011/12: 863. Year 2012/13: 896. Day parole to statutory release. Year 2008/09: 456. Year 2009/10: 480. Year 2010/11: 470. Year 2011/12: 535. Year 2007/08: 633.

  • In 2012/13, the number of day parole supervision periods that were continued increased 37%, the number of graduations from day parole to statutory release increased 18%, while the number of graduations from day parole to full parole increased 4% compared to 2011/12.

The majority of the changes in federal releases from institutions and graduations in 2011/12 and 2012/13 could be explained by the abolition of the APR process at the end of 2010/11. Looking at the changes in releases and graduations within the groups of offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-schedule offences may provide further insight.

Figure 15. Changes in the Proportions of Releases and Graduations for Offenders Serving Sentences for Schedule II Offences

Changes in the Proportions of Releases and Graduations for Offenders Serving Sentences for Schedule 2 Offences

The figure is in the form of chart lines, showing changes (in percentages) in federal releases and graduations for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences for the period between 2009/10 and 2012/13, with 2010/11 identified as the C-59 year (the first year after the abolition of the APR). The figure, displaying no data labels, shows that after 2010/11, federal releases from institutions on day parole and graduations from day parole to full parole decreased in 2011/12 and 2012/13, while day parole supervision periods that were continued as well as graduations from day parole to statutory release increased in 2011/12 and 2012/13.

  • Following the abolition of the APR, the proportions of federal releases from institutions on day parole decreased for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (-5.3% in 2011/12; -1.3% in 2012/13), as did the proportions of graduations from day parole to full parole (-8.5% in 2011/12; -3.6% in 2012/13). Instead, the proportions increased for day parole supervision periods that were continued (+2.5% in 2011/12; +5.7% in 2012/13) and for graduations from day parole to statutory release (+1.8% in 2011/12; +2.8% in 2012/13). The proportion of federal releases from institutions on statutory release of these offenders increased significantly (+9.6%) in the first post-APR year (2011/12) and then decreased (-2.8%) in 2012/13. It should also be noted that larger proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences were released from institutions on statutory releases without a prior release on parole (+4.3% in 2011/12; +4.6% in 2012/13).

Figure 16. Changes in the Proportions of Releases and Graduations for Offenders Serving Sentences for Non-Scheduled Offences

Changes in the Proportions of Releases and Graduations for Offenders Serving Sentences for Non-Scheduled Offences

The figure is in the form of chart lines, showing changes (in percentages) in federal releases and graduations for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences for the period between 2009/10 and 2012/13, with 2010/11 identified as the C-59 year (the first year after the abolition of the APR). The figure, displaying no data labels, shows that after 2010/11, federal releases from institutions on day parole and graduations from day parole to full parole decreased in 2011/12 and 2012/13, while day parole supervision periods that were continued as well as graduations from day parole to statutory release increased in 2011/12 and 2012/13.

  • To a large extent, similar changes were reported for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences. The proportions of federal releases of these offenders from institutions on day parole decreased (-4.8% in 2011/12; -0.7% in 2012/13), as did the proportions of graduations from day parole to full parole (-5.4% in 2011/12; -0.7% in 2012/13). Instead, the proportions increased for day parole supervision periods that were continued (+1.3% in 2011/12; +2.9% in 2012/13) and graduations from day parole to statutory release (+2.1% in 2011/12; +1.0% in 2012/13). The proportion of federal releases of these offenders from institutions on statutory release increased (+7.5%) in 2011/12 and then decreased (-2.8%) in 2012/13. Similar to schedule II offenders, larger proportions of these offenders were released from institutions on statutory release without a prior release on parole (+4.7% in 2011/12; +3.0% in 2012/13).
  • For offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, the proportions of federal releases directly from institutions on discretionary release (day and full parole) decreased in 2012/13, while the proportion of federal releases on statutory release increased compared to 2011/12. There were no substantial changes in graduations for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences in the last five years.
  • For offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, the proportions of federal releases directly from institutions decreased in 2012/13 on day parole, full parole and statutory release, as did graduations from day parole to statutory release, while the proportions of day parole supervision periods that were continued and the proportions of graduations from day to full parole increased compared to 2011/12.

The following subsection discusses federal releases from institutions on statutory release in relation to prior consideration for discretionary release.

Figure 17. Federal Releases from Institutions on Statutory Release in Relation to Prior Consideration for Discretionary Release

Federal Releases from Institutions on Statutory Release in Relation to Prior Consideration for Discretionary Release

The chart is in the form of 100% stacked bar, showing the numbers, as well as visualising the proportions, of releases on statutory release by type: releases on SR where parole was previously granted/directed, releases on SR where parole was previously denied/not directed, and releases on SR where there was no prior parole decision for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Year 2008/09. Parole Previously Granted/Directed: 1,428. Parole Previously Denied/Not Directed: 1,750. No Prior Parole Decision: 2,586. Year 2009/10. Parole Previously Granted/Directed: 1,291. Parole Previously Denied/Not Directed: 1,702. No Prior Parole Decision: 2,559. Year 2010/11. Parole Previously Granted/Directed: 1,044. Parole Previously Denied/Not Directed: 1,622. No Prior Parole Decision: 2,428. Year 2011/12. Parole Previously Granted/Directed: 987. Parole Previously Denied/Not Directed: 1,823. No Prior Parole Decision: 2,515. Year 2012/13. Parole Previously Granted/Directed: 921. Parole Previously Denied/Not Directed: 1,750. No Prior Parole Decision: 2,881.

  • The five-year data indicate that the proportion of offenders who had no parole review prior to their release on statutory release has increased:
    1. The proportion of federal releases from institutions to statutory release where parole was previously granted/directed decreased from 25% in 2008/09 to 17% in 2012/13.
    2. The proportion of federal releases from institutions to statutory release where parole was previously denied/not directed increased from 30% in 2008/09 to 32% in 2012/13.
    3. The proportion of federal releases from institutions to statutory release with no prior parole decision increased from 45% in 2008/09 to 52% in 2012/12.
  • In the last five years, the proportions of federal releases from institutions on statutory release where parole was previously granted/directed decreased for all offence types. However, as mentioned earlier, the decreases were particularly pronounced for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences in 2011/12 and 2012/13, following the abolition of the APR process.
  • In the last five years, the proportions of federal releases from institutions to statutory release where there was no prior parole decision (cases where offenders waived their parole reviews) increased significantly for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences. The proportion increased modestly for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, while it increased slightly for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences.
  • Overall, in 2012/13, 2,881 (or 52%) of federal releases from institutions to statutory release were releases where offenders were not considered for discretionary release by the Board prior to their legislated release. Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences had the highest proportion (65%), while offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences, despite recent significant increases, had the smallest proportion (27%).

Reviews

(Tables 41-46)

Figure 18. Federal and Provincial Reviews

Federal and Provincial Reviews

The chart is in the form of chart lines with markers showing the number of federal and provincial reviews by region for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Atlantic. Year 2008/09: 1,851. Year 2009/10: 1,777. Year 2010/11: 1,940. Year 2011/12: 1,513. Year 2012/13: 1,787. Quebec. Year 2008/09: 4,029. Year 2009/10: 4,079. Year 2010/11: 4,125. Year 2011/12: 3,953. Year 2012/13: 4,888. Ontario. Year 2008/09: 4,095. Year 2009/10: 3,874. Year 2010/11: 3,969. Year 2011/12: 3,619. Year 2012/13: 4,284. Prairies. Year 2008/09: 4,802. Year 2009/10: 4,632. Year 2010/11: 4,365. Year 2011/12: 4,038. Year 2012/13: 5,280. Pacific. Year 2008/09: 2,783. Year 2009/10: 2,631. Year 2010/11: 2,463. Year 2011/12: 2,488. Year 2012/13: 2,702.

  • In 2012/13, the number of federal and provincial reviews conducted by the Board increased to 18,941 (+21%): 18,205 reviews at the federal level (+23%) and 736 reviews at the provincial level (-13%) when compared to the previous year.
  • By region, increases were reported in the Atlantic (+18%), Quebec (+24%), Ontario (+18%), Prairie (+31%) and Pacific (+9%) regions in 2012/13.
NOTE

The increase in the number of reviews is in part related to changes made to the definition of workload in 2012/13. All cases where the final decision is to accept or reject a postponement of the review are now recorded as ‘reviews', whereas previously they were recorded as a ‘decision status'. As the offender's file is often prepared prior to the review being postponed, this method accounts more accurately for the Board's workload.

In 2012/13, the Board accepted 2,152 postponements of federal reviews and 25 postponements of provincial reviews and rejected 61 postponements of federal reviews and 1 postponement of a provincial review. Postponements of federal reviews accounted for 12% of all federal reviews conducted in 2012/13, while postponements of provincial reviews accounted for 4% of all provincial reviews.

  • When controlling for reviews where postponement accepted/rejected was the final decision, the number of federal reviews on file increased 15% (from 8,854 in 2011/12 to 10,174 in 2012/13). The increase was in part attributed to the increasing number of cases where a residency and/or special condition was imposed on statutory release. In 2012/13, the number of pre-release reviews on file where the Board imposed a residency and/or special condition increased 17% (from 3,375 in 2011/12 to 3,956 in 2012/13).
  • The increase in the number of federal reviews on file in 2012/13 was also compounded with increases in the numbers of pre-release reviews on file where the final decision was to continue day parole (from 695 in 2011/12 to 905 in 2012/13) and to grant full parole (from 311 in 2011/12 to 503 in 2012/13).
  • In 2012/13, the increase in the number of federal reviews on file was countered with a decrease in the number of federal panel reviews, which decreased 2% (from 5,910 in 2011/12 to 5,818 in 2012/13, when controlling for reviews where postponement accepted/rejected was the final decision). The decrease was driven primarily by reviews conducted for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (-9%). The number of federal pre-release panel reviews increased for other offence types in 2012/13.

Federal pre-release reviews increased as projected for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences (former APR-eligible offenders). As the automatic APR review on file process was eliminated, these offenders now require two separate processes, one for day parole, which occurs later in the offender's sentence than the automatic APR review, and one for full parole. As a result, the number of pre-release reviews for these offenders decreased in 2011/12 and rebounded in 2012/13, excluding reviews where final decision was to accept or reject postponement. Eighty-nine (89) more hearings were conducted in 2012/13 for offenders serving sentences for schedule II (+8%) and 51 more hearings were conducted for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (+5%) compared to the previous year, as well as more pre-release reviews on file (+489, or +53%; and +324, or +24% respectively).

Figure 19. Federal Pre-Release Reviews

Federal Pre-Release Reviews

The figure is in the form of chart lines, showing reviews for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences between 2008/09 and 2012/13 with 2010/11 identified as the C-59 year (the abolition of the APR). The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that the numbers of pre-release reviews for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences decreased sharply in 2011/12 and then rebounded in 2012/13.

  • The total number of federal pre-release reviews increased 13% (from 11,502 in 2011/12 to 12,947 in 2012/13), excluding 1,985 postponement cases in 2012/13. Federal post-release reviews increased less than half a percentage point (from 4,976 in 2011/12 to 4,999 in 2012/13), excluding 131 postponement cases in 2012/13.
  • Provincial pre-release reviews decreased 17% (from 778 in 2011/12 to 643 in 2012/13), excluding 26 postponement cases in 2012/13, while provincial post-release reviews decreased 5% (from 73 to 69).
  • The number of detention reviews increased in 2012/13 to 604 (+6%), excluding 97 postponement cases in 2012/13.
  • In 2012/13, the Board reported a small decrease (to 465; -1%) in federal and provincial panel reviews with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor, excluding three postponement cases in 2012/13. In the last five years (2008/09 to 2012/13), 8% of the PBC hearings were conducted with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor. The Prairie region had the highest proportion of hearings conducted with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor in the last five years (16%).

The Board's workload is also affected by the number of waivers and withdrawals, as well as postponements.

NOTE

Waivers and Withdrawals

A day parole review is conducted following receipt of an application from the offender. If an offender no longer wishes to be considered for day parole, he or she may choose to withdraw the application for a day parole review. If an offender wishes to proceed with the review without attending the hearing, then the offender may choose to waive the hearing, which would result in a review on file.

Full parole review is a legislated review, and as such, if an offender wishes not to undergo the review or not to attend the hearing, he or she must officially declare so by means of a waiver. In cases where an offender was denied full parole, but wishes to be reconsidered for full parole before the date prescribed by regulations, he or she cannot submit an application for a full parole review earlier than one year following the previous review, unless recommended by CSC for an earlier review. Unlike legislated full parole reviews requiring waivers, offenders may withdraw this type of full parole application if they choose to do so.

It should be noted that postponement cases in 2012/13 include reviews where the postponement accepted/rejected decision was recorded as the final decision and cases where the postponement decision was entered as a decision status.

Figure 20. Federal and Provincial Reviews Delayed

Federal and Provincial Reviews Delayed

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the number of federal and provincial reviews delayed by type: waivers, postponements and withdrawals for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Waivers. Year 2008/09: 3,248. Year 2009/10: 3,301. Year 2010/11: 3,374. Year 2011/12: 3,967. Year 2012/13: 4,137. Postponements. Year 2008/09: 2,986. Year 2009/10: 2,951. Year 2010/11: 2,773. Year 2011/12: 3,078. Year 2012/13: 4,047. Withdrawals. Year 2008/09: 1,375. Year 2009/10: 1,192. Year 2010/11: 1,171. Year 2011/12: 1,308. Year 2012/13: 1,324.

  • In 2012/13, the Board registered 4,128 waivers of federal reviews and nine waivers of provincial reviews, 4,001 postponements of federal reviews and 46 postponements of provincial reviews, as well as 942 withdrawals from federal reviews and 382 withdrawals from provincial reviews.
  • This is the second year when the number of federal and provincial postponements increased significantly (+31%), following the 11% increase in 2011/12. Moderate increases were reported for the numbers of waivers (+4%) and withdrawals (+1%) in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12.
  • Compared to the previous year, the number of waivers increased in the Atlantic (+17%), Prairie (+5%) and Pacific (+12%) regions and decreased in the Quebec (-1%) and Ontario (-0.2%) regions. The number of postponements increased in the Atlantic (+58%), Quebec (+56%), Ontario (+16%) and Prairie (+19%) regions, remaining the same in the Pacific region.

Conditional Release Decisions

Conditional Release Decisions: Decision Trends

This section provides information on the following operational areas of the Board: 1) temporary absence; 2) day parole; 3) full parole; 4) statutory release; 5) detention; 6) long-term supervision; 7) appeals.

Temporary Absence

(Tables 47-51)

Temporary absences (TAs) are used for several purposes, such as: medical, compassionate and personal development for rehabilitation. Under the CCRA, the Parole Board of Canada has authority to authorize unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) to offenders serving a life sentence for murder, an indeterminate sentence, or a determinate sentence for an offence set out in schedule I or II. CSC has authority for all other UTAs and most escorted temporary absences (ETAs). The CCRA also allows the Board to delegate its UTA authority to the Commissioner of CSC or to institutional heads. This has been done for all scheduled offences, except where the schedule I offence resulted in serious harm to the victim, or was a sexual offence involving a child. As well, PBC approval is required for ETAs for offenders serving life sentences prior to their day parole eligibility dates except for ETAs for medical reasons or in order to attend judicial proceedings or a coroner's inquest.

This section contains information on the temporary absence decisions rendered by the Board.

Figure 21. Temporary Absence Decisions and Approval/Authorization Rates

Temporary Absence Decisions and Approval/Authorization Rates

There are two charts, both chart lines with markers, grouped in the image: chart Decisions and chart Approval/Authorization Rates (%). Chart Decisions shows the number of decisions for Escorted Temporary Absences (ETAs) and Unescorted Temporary Absences (UTAs); and Chart Approval/Authorization Rates (%) shows Approval Rates for ETAs and Authorization Rates for UTAs (percentages) for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Chart Decisions. ETA. Year 2008/09: 175. Year 2009/10: 218. Year 2010/11: 186. Year 2011/12: 227. Year 2012/13: 174. UTA. Year 2008/09: 467. Year 2009/10: 449. Year 2010/11: 427. Year 2011/12: 426. Year 2012/13: 525. Chart Approval/Authorization Rates (%). ETA. Year 2008/09: 85. Year 2009/10: 87. Year 2010/11: 87. Year 2011/12: 79. Year 2012/13: 76. UTA. Year 2008/09: 78. Year 2009/10: 80. Year 2010/11: 77. Year 2011/12: 67. Year 2012/13: 69.

  • The Board made decisions on 699 applications for temporary absences in 2012/13, an increase of 6% from the previous year. ETA decisions rendered by the Board decreased to 174 (-23%) in 2012/13, while UTA decisions increased to 525 (+23%).
  • The number of ETA decisions decreased in the Atlantic (-1), Quebec (-17), Ontario (-11) and Prairie regions (-29) in 2012/13, while the number increased in the Pacific region (+5) compared to 2011/12.
  • The number of UTA decisions in 2012/13 increased in the Quebec (+10), Ontario (+19), Prairie (+61) and Pacific (+10) regions, while it decreased in the Atlantic region (-1) in comparison with the previous year.
  • The national approval rate for ETAs in 2012/13 decreased three percentage points to 76%, while the authorization rate for UTAs increased two percentage points to 69%.
  • In 2012/13, the five-year average ETA approval rates for Aboriginal, Asian and White offenders were lower than the national average, while the rates were higher for Black offenders and offenders of Other category.
  • The five-year average UTA authorization rates for Aboriginal and Asian offenders and offenders of Other category were lower in 2012/13 than the five-year national average, while the rates were higher for Black and White offenders.
  • In 2012/13, the five-year average ETA approval rate for women was 86% compared to the men's rate of 82%, while the five-year average UTA authorization rate was 64% for women and 75% for men.
  • In 2012/13, the five-year average ETA approval rate for women was 86% compared to the men's rate of 82%, while the five-year average UTA authorization rate was 64% for women and 75% for men.
  • By sentence type, the five-year average approval/authorization rates for lifers were 83% for ETAs and 75% for UTAs. In 2012/13, the ETA approval rate decreased (-3%) for these offenders, while the UTA authorization rate increased (+2%).
  • The five-year average UTA authorization rate for offenders serving determinate sentences was 67%. In 2012/13, the rate increased to 59% from 57% in 2011/12.

Day Parole

(Tables 52-65)

Day parole is a type of conditional release which allows offenders to participate in community-based activities in preparation for full parole or statutory release. The conditions require offenders to return nightly to an institution or a half-way house, unless otherwise authorized by the Board.

In this section, the number of day parole grants includes not only those for whom day parole has been directed or granted but those for whom day parole has been continued. A day parole is continued to allow the offender additional time to further prepare for full parole. It should be noted that the Board must conduct an assessment of risk before each day parole grant/directed decision as well as each day parole continued decision.

The day parole population changed significantly when Bill C-55, which came into force on July 3, 1997, reinstated automatic day parole review and day parole eligibility at the one-sixth of the sentence for offenders who, according to the law, were entitled to be considered for accelerated parole review (APR).

On March 28, 2011, Bill C-59 eliminated the APR process, which resulted in fewer day and full parole reviews in 2011/12, for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences, who in the previous years would have been eligible for an APR review. In 2012/13, the number of reviews for these types of offenders rebounded.

The new provisions with respect to the abolition of the APR affected all regions with a notable exception in the Pacific region, where the British Columbia Supreme Court struck down the section of the law in relation to the retrospective application of Bill C-59 as being contrary to s. 11(h) of the Charter (Whaling v. Canada Footnote 7). As a result, the Pacific region continued processing APR cases, which had been initiated before March 28, 2011. These provisions affected both, day and full parole release decisions.

  • In 2012/13, the number of federal day parole release decisions increased to 4,610 (+9%). The total includes 21 federal day parole APR decisions in the Pacific region. The number of provincial day parole release decisions decreased to 450 (-15%).
  • Federal day parole release decisions increased in all regions in 2012/13: Atlantic (+12%), Quebec (+15%), Ontario (+4%), Prairie (+8%) and Pacific (+2%).
  • The number of federal day parole release decisions following a hearing with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor increased to 303 (+4%) in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12.
  • In 2012/13, the average proportion of sentence served before the first federal day parole release for offenders serving determinate sentences remained relatively unchanged at 38%. Small variations, however, were reported for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences for whom the average proportion of sentence served before their first day parole release increased one percentage point each compared to the previous year, while the proportion decreased one percentage point for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences.
  • Despite the recent changes, offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences served the lowest proportion of their sentences at their first day parole release in 2012/13 (34%), while schedule I-sex offenders served the highest proportion (44%).
  • Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders served 40% of their sentences before being released into the community on their first federal day parole release, the highest proportion, while Asian offenders were released on their first day parole having served 29% of their sentences, the lowest.
  • Over the last five years, male offenders served 35% of their sentences before being released into the community on their first federal day parole release, and female offenders served 32%.

Figure 22. Grant Rates for Federal and Provincial Day Parole

Grant Rates for Federal and Provincial Day Parole

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the grant rates (percentages) for federal day parole regular, federal day parole APR and provincial day parole for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Federal Day Parole Regular. Year 2008/09: 71. Year 2009/10: 68. Year 2010/11: 63. Year 2011/12: 65. Year 2012/13: 68. Federal Day Parole APR. Year 2008/09: 66. Year 2009/10: 64. Year 2010/11: 61. Provincial Day Parole. Year 2008/09: 54. Year 2009/10: 47. Year 2010/11: 43. Year 2011/12: 41. Year 2012/13: 48.

  • In 2012/13, the grant rate for federal (regular) day parole increased three percentage points to 68%, following a 2% increase in the previous year.
  • The grant rate for provincial day parole increased in 2012/13 to 48% (+7%).
NOTE

Grant rates should be read with caution. Even though comparisons were made between federal regular day parole grant rates only, they nevertheless contain an APR residual effect: grant rates for regular day parole in 2011/12 included decisions for non-violent offenders (APR-affected population), while the grant rates for regular day parole in 2010/11 did not. A sufficiently large proportion of these offenders was granted regular federal day parole in 2011/12, perhaps inflating the grant rate.

Figure 23. Federal Regular Day Parole Grant Rates (%)

Federal Regular Day Parole Grant Rates (%)

The figure is in the form of chart lines showing federal regular day parole grant rates (percentages) for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13 with 2010/11 identified as the C-59 year (the abolition of the APR). The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that regular day parole grant rates were decreasing from 2007/08 to 2009/10, followed by the increases in 2011/12 and in 2012/13 for both, offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences and offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.

  • In 2011/12, following the abolition of the APR process, the federal day parole grant rates increased significantly for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (+7%) and those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (+6%). In 2012/13, the rates increased once again (4% each).
  • In 2012/13, the federal regular day parole grant rates increased also for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (+3%) and for those serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (+1%), while the rate decreased slightly for offenders serving sentences for murder (-0.3%) compared to 2011/12.
  • The federal (regular) day parole grant rates increased in all regions in 2012/13: Atlantic (+2%), Quebec (+1%), Ontario (+5%), Prairie (+4%) and Pacific (+3%).
  • In 2012/13, offenders with determinate sentences accounted for 80% of all federal day parole decisions with a grant rate of 69% (+4%). Lifers accounted for 15% of federal day parole decisions with a grant rate of 80% (no change), while those with other indeterminate sentences accounted for 5% of federal day parole release decisions with a grant rate of 6% (-1%).
  • The grant rate for federal day parole following hearings with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor increased to 57% (+3%) in 2012/13.
  • Over the last five-year period, Asian offenders were the most likely to be granted federal day parole (69%), while Black offenders were the least likely (57%).
  • Female offenders were far more likely to be granted federal day parole (80%) than male offenders (66%) in the last five years.
  • In 2011/12, for the first time in the last five years, grant rates for federal day parole (regular) increased one percentage point to 64%.
  • Grant rates for provincial day parole continued to decline in 2011/12 to 41% (-2%). Footnote 10
  • In 2011/12, the Quebec region registered the highest increase in the federal (regular) day parole grant rate (+6%), followed by the Prairie (+1%), Pacific (+1%) and Ontario (+1%) regions, while the Atlantic region reported a decrease (-2%).
  • By offence type, grant rates for federal day parole increased significantly for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (+7%) and those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (+5%) in 2011/12. Federal day parole grant rates increased slightly for offenders serving sentences for murder (+1%) and schedule I-sex offences (+1%), but decreased for those serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (-1%). The observed increases in grant rates for schedule II and non-scheduled offenders is largely related to the elimination of the APR process, where a large portion of these offenders who might have been directed to day parole under the former APR provisions were granted day parole following a regular day parole review in 2011/12.
  • In 2011/12, offenders with determinate sentences accounted for 80% of all federal day parole decisions to grant day parole with a grant rate of 65% (+3%). Lifers accounted for 15% of federal day parole decisions with a grant rate of 80% (no change), while those with other indeterminate sentences accounted for 5% with a grant rate of 7% (no change).
  • Grant rates for federal day parole following hearings with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor increased in 2011/12 to 54% (+7%).
  • Over the last five-year period, White offenders were the most likely to be granted federal day parole (69%), while Black offenders were the least likely (58%).
  • Female offenders were far more likely to be granted federal day parole (81%) than male offenders (66%) in the last five years.

Full Parole

(Tables 66-83)

Full parole is a type of conditional release which allows the offender to serve the remainder of the sentence under supervision in the community.

On March 28, 2011, Bill C-59 eliminated the APR process, which resulted in fewer day and full parole decisions in 2011/12, for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences, who in the previous years would have been eligible for an APR review. The number of reviews for these offenders rebounded the following year, resulting in an increase in the number of full parole release decisions rendered by the Board in 2012/13.

As noted in the previous section, the Pacific region continued processing APR cases for those offenders whose process had been initiated before March 28, 2011.

  • In 2012/13, the number of federal full parole release decisions increased to 3,491 (+10%). The total includes 26 federal full parole APR decisions in the Pacific region. The number of provincial full parole release decisions decreased to 347 (-21%).
  • Federal full parole release decisions increased in the Atlantic (+25%), Quebec (+6%), Ontario (+15%) and Prairie (+15%) regions, and decreased in the Pacific region (-4%).
  • The number of federal full parole release decisions following a hearing with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor decreased to 207 (-8%) in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12.
  • The average proportion of the sentence served prior to first federal full parole release for offenders serving determinate sentences increased to 47% (+6%) in 2012/13, after an increase of 3% to 41% in 2011/12. These increases were driven primarily by offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences (some of whom were former APR-eligible offenders), whose proportions of sentence served prior to first full parole release increased to 39% (+4%) in 2011/12 and then to 45% (+6%) in 2012/13 for schedule II offenders, and to 39% (+3%) in 2011/12 and to 47% (+8%) in 2012/13 for non-scheduled offenders. The proportion of the sentence served prior to first full parole release increased one percentage point each, for schedule I-sex (to 50%) and schedule I-non-sex (to 49%) offenders in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12.
  • Over the five-year period (from 2008/09 to 2012/13), Aboriginal offenders served 43% of their sentence prior to their first federal release on full parole, the highest proportion, while Asian offenders served 38%, the lowest.
  • Over the same time period, the average proportion of sentence served before the first federal full parole release was 40% for men and 38% for women.

Figure 24. Grant Rates for Federal and Provincial Full Parole

Grant Rates for Federal and Provincial Full Parole

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the grant rates (percentages) for federal full parole regular, federal full parole APR and provincial full parole for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Federal Full Parole Regular. Year 2008/09: 21. Year 2009/10: 18. Year 2010/11: 17. Year 2011/12: 23. Year 2012/13: 29. Federal Full Parole APR. Year 2008/09: 100. Year 2009/10: 99. Year 2010/11: 99. Provincial Full Parole. Year 2008/09: 43. Year 2009/10: 37. Year 2010/11: 31. Year 2011/12: 30. Year 2012/13: 29.

  • In 2012/13, the grant rate for federal (regular) full parole increased six percentage points to 29%, following a 6% increase the previous year.
  • The grant rate for provincial full parole decreased one percentage point in 2012/13 to 29%.
NOTE

Grant rates should be read with caution. Even though comparisons were made between federal regular full parole grant rates only, they nevertheless contain an APR residual effect: grant rates for regular full parole in 2011/12 and 2012/13 included decisions for non-violent offenders (APR-affected population), while the grant rates for regular full parole for the previous years (2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11) did not. A sufficiently large proportion of these offenders were granted regular federal full parole following the abolition of the APR process, perhaps inflating the grant rate (see the graph to the right).

25. Federal Regular Full Parole Grant Rates (%)

Federal Regular Full Parole Grant Rates (%)

The figure is in the form of chart lines showing regular full parole grant rates (percentages) for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13 with 2010/11 identified as the C-59 year (the abolition of the APR). The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that regular full parole grant rates were relatively stable from 2008/09 to 2010/11, followed by the increases in 2011/12 and in 2012/13 for both, offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences and offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.

  • In 2011/12, following the abolition of the APR process, grant rates for federal regular full parole increased to 33% (+17%) for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences and to 20% (+11%) for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences when compared to the previous year. In 2012/13, the grant rates for these offenders increased again: to 39% (+6%) for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences and to 27% (+7%) for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences compared to 2011/12.
  • The federal full parole grant rates also increased for offenders serving sentences for murder to 29% (+4%), for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences to 20% (+6%) and for those serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences to 24% (+5%) compared to 2011/12.
  • Over the five-year period between 2008/09 to 2012/13, Asian offenders had the highest grant rate for federal and provincial full parole (29%; 44%), while Aboriginal offenders had the lowest grant rate for federal full parole (15%), and Black offenders had the lowest grant rate for provincial full parole (22%).
  • Female offenders had significantly higher grant rates for federal and provincial full parole in the last five years (34%; 46%) compared to male offenders (21%; 33%).
  • By sentence type, in 2012/13, offenders with determinate sentences accounted for 86% of all full parole release decisions with a grant rate of 31%. Offenders with life sentences accounted for 8% of full parole release decisions with a grant rate of 30%. In the last five years, there were only eight full paroles granted for offenders with other indeterminate sentences, with an average grant rate of 1%.
  • The number of pre-release residency conditions imposed on federal full parole grant decisions in 2012/13 increased to 25 from 17 in 2011/12. The number of post-release residency conditions imposed on federal full parole grant decisions in 2012/13 decreased to 45 from 96 in 2011/12.

Statutory Release

(Tables 84-92)

All federal offenders serving determinate sentences are entitled to statutory release after serving two-thirds of their sentences, unless it is determined that they are likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person, a sexual offence involving a child or a serious drug offence before the expiration of their sentence. Offenders with indeterminate sentences are not entitled to statutory release.

Figure 26. Incarcerated Population Serving Determinate Sentences Compared to the Number of Releases on Statutory Release

Incarcerated Population Serving Determinate Sentences Compared to the Number of Releases on Statutory Release

The graph is in the form of clustered bars, showing the number of incarcerated population serving determinate sentences in comparison with the number of releases on statutory release (displayed as proportions) in the given year for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Year 2008/09. Incarcerated population: 10,574; releases on SR: 55%. Year 2009/10. Incarcerated population: 10,215; releases on SR: 54%. Year 2010/11. Incarcerated population: 10,364; releases on SR: 49%. Year 2011/12. Incarcerated population: 10,942; releases on SR: 49%. Year 2012/13. Incarcerated population: 11,061; releases on SR: 50%.

  • In 2012/13, annual releases from institutions on statutory release increased 4.3% (to 5,552 from 5,325 in 2011/12), while the federal incarcerated offender population serving determinate sentences (on April 1, 2012) increased 1.1% (to 11,061 from 10,942 on April 1, 2011). The proportion of the incarcerated population serving determinate sentences released on statutory release increased as a result to 50% (from 49% in 2011/12).
  • By offence type, the proportion of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences released on statutory release increased to 32% (+2%), remaining the lowest proportion. The proportion of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences released on statutory release increased to 54% (+4%).
  • The proportions of offenders released on statutory release increased for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences to 47% (+4%) in the first post-APR year 2011/12, and then decreased to 45% the following year, 2012/13. The proportion of offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences released on statutory release decreased to 60% (-6%) in the first post-APR year, 2011/12, and then decreased to 59% the following year, 2012/13.
  • Over the last five years, the Prairie region had the largest proportion of federal offenders serving determinate sentences released on statutory release (57%) and the Quebec region the lowest (46%) compared with the other regions.
  • Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders serving determinate sentences had the highest proportion of releases on statutory release than any other group (62%), and offenders of Other race category had the lowest proportion (31%).
  • In 2012/13, the proportion of male offenders serving determinate sentences released on statutory release increased to 50% (+1%) compared to the previous year, while the proportion of female offenders serving determinate sentences released on statutory release remained the same at 50%.
  • The number of residency conditions imposed and prolonged by the Board on statutory release in 2012/13 increased 11% (to 2,309), following an 18% increase the year before. The numbers increased in the Quebec (to 502; +18%), Ontario (to 859; +6%) and Prairie (to 447; +37%) regions, and decreased in the Pacific region (to 322; -3%). The number remained unchanged in the Atlantic region (at 179).

Detention

(Tables 93-101)

Before an offender's statutory release date, CSC can refer the case to the Board for a detention review if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person, a sexual offence involving a child or a serious drug offence before the expiration of the offender's sentence. If the Board determines that the offender is likely to reoffend, then a detention order is issued, and the offender is detained.

  • In comparison with the previous year, as of April 14, 2013, 345 (-2) offenders were detained, and 74 (+8) had a detention order but had not yet reached their statutory release dates.
  • Referrals for detention increased to 236 (+10%) in 2012/13. Four regions reported increases: the Quebec (+12%), Ontario (+11%), Prairie (+8%) and Pacific (+19%) regions. In the Atlantic region the number remained the same.
  • The detention referral rate (ratio of detention referrals against the total offender population entitled to statutory release in a given year) increased slightly to 4.0% in 2012/13 compared to 3.8% in 2011/12. A modest increase in the number of detention referrals in 2012/13 accounted for the increase in the rate.
  • The number of offenders detained as a result of a detention review in 2012/13 increased to 232 (+25) compared to 2011/12, while the proportion detained increased to 98.3% (+1.6%). The proportion of offenders released on statutory release following a detention review decreased to 0.8%, as did the proportion of offenders released on one chance statutory release, to 0.8% as well.
  • Over the last five years (2008/09 to 2012/13), schedule I offenders were overrepresented as a proportion of offenders referred for detention and detained compared with other groups. Following a detention review in 2012/13, 99% of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences and 98% of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences were detained. Three offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences and nine offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences were referred for detention in 2012/13 and all were detained.
  • In comparison with the previous year, in 2012/13 the number of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences who were detained decreased to 72 (-7) and one offender was released on statutory release.
  • The number of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences who were detained in 2012/13 increased to 148 (+37) compared to 2011/12. One offender serving a sentence for schedule I-non-sex offences was released on statutory release, and two offenders were released on one-chance statutory release in 2012/13.
  • The number of Aboriginal offenders detained in 2012/13 increased (to 89; +1), as did the numbers of Black (to 23; +10) and White (to 109; +13) offenders and offenders of Other category (to 9; +2). Two Asian offenders were referred for detention and were detained in 2012/13, one fewer than in 2011/12.
  • Over the last five years, 22 women, 16 of whom were Aboriginal, have been referred for detention and all were detained.
  • Among male offenders referred for detention in 2012/13, 98% (+1%) were detained, one (1) percent was released on statutory release, and one percent was released on one-chance statutory release. Aboriginal men represented 40% of all male offenders detained in the last five years compared to 47% of White offenders.
  • In 2012/13, the initial detention rates increased slightly in the Prairie (+4%) and Pacific (+2%) regions, and remained relatively unchanged in the remaining regions. In all regions, the initial detention rates were higher than their respective ten-year averages, with the highest relative difference in the Ontario region, where the initial detention rates reached 100% in 2011/12 and 2012/13, 10% higher than the ten-year average.
  • Over the last five years (2008/09 to 2012/13), the PBC has averaged 330 annual and subsequent detention reviews, confirming its decisions in 92% of cases.

Long-Term Supervision

(Tables 102-106)

The court, upon application by the prosecution, may impose a long-term supervision order (LTSO), not exceeding ten years, if it is satisfied that it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of two years or more for the offence of which the offender had been convicted, there is substantial risk that the offender will reoffend, and there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

The Board may establish conditions for the long-term supervision of an offender that are considered reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the successful reintegration of the offender into society. A long-term supervision order, unlike other forms of conditional release, cannot be revoked by the Board. However, the Board can recommend that charges be laid under the Criminal Code if the offender has demonstrated by his/her behaviour that he/she presents a substantial risk to the community because of a failure to comply with one or more conditions.

  • Since 2000/01, when the first offender was released on a long-term supervision order, the long-term supervision population has reached 366 (as of April 14, 2013) and is expected to increase. In 2012/13, 47 offenders were released from institutions with long-term supervision orders upon reaching warrant expiry, and 18 offenders were subject to a long-term supervision order after reaching warrant expiry on a supervision period.

Figure 27. Long-Term Supervision Population

Long-Term Supervision Population

The figure is in the form of chart lines, showing the long-term supervision population in the five regions from 2001/02 to 2012/13. The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that the long-term supervision population has been steadily increasing since 2001/02, with the highest numbers in the Quebec region, followed by the Ontario, Pacific, Prairie and Atlantic regions.

  • The LTSO population increased significantly in the Quebec region (to 123; +17%) in 2012/13 compared to the previous year. As of April 14, 2013, 34% of offenders on long-term supervision orders were in the Quebec region, the highest proportion, followed by the Ontario (29%), Pacific (17%), Prairie (15%) and Atlantic (6%) regions.
  • Within the long-term supervision population, the proportions of Aboriginal, Black and White offenders increased slightly in 2012/13, while the proportions decreased for Asian offenders and offenders of Other category.
  • In 2012/13, 72% of all offenders on long-term supervision orders were offenders who were sentenced for schedule I-sex offences and 26% were offenders sentenced for schedule I-non-sex offences. Seven offenders who were sentenced for non-scheduled offences, or 2%, were on long-term supervision orders in 2012/13.
  • In 2012/13, PBC rendered 623 (+8%) decisions for offenders on long-term supervision orders. The number of decisions decreased in the pre-release (-5%) category, while they increased in the post-release category (+10%).
  • The number of pre-release residency conditions imposed on offenders on long-term supervision orders increased to 57 (+1) in 2012/13, while the number of post-release residency conditions which were imposed increased to 313 (+29) compared to the previous year.

Appeals

(Tables 107-114)

Within the Board, the Appeal Division is responsible for re-examining, upon application by an offender, certain decisions made by the Board.

The Appeal Division's role is to ensure that the law and the Board's policies are respected, that the rules of fundamental justice are adhered to, and that Board decisions are reasonable and based upon relevant and reliable information. It reviews the decision-making process to confirm that it was fair and that procedural safeguards were respected.

Appeal Applications

  • The Appeal Division received a total of 613 applications to appeal conditional release decisions in 2012/13. Four hundred and seventy-eight (478) applications, or 78%, were accepted for review.
  • In comparison with 2011/12, the number of federal appeal applications received increased by 14 applications (from 567 to 581) in 2012/13. Increases were reported in the Atlantic (+16), Quebec (+7) and Prairie (+18) regions and decreases were reported in the Ontario (-6) and Pacific (-21) regions.
  • The number of provincial appeal applications received in 2012/13 decreased by 13 applications: Atlantic (-1), Prairie (-11) and Pacific (-1).
  • Of the 454 federal appeal applications accepted, 13 were cancelled and 6 were withdrawn, leaving 435 federal applications to be processed. Of the 24 provincial appeal applications accepted, 2 were withdrawn, leaving 22 provincial applications to be processed.

Appeal Decisions

  • In 2012/13, the Appeal Division rendered 621 decisions on 487 cases.
  • The Appeal Division modified the decision in 63 appeal cases which resulted in a new hearing ordered in 37 cases, a new review ordered in 23 cases, the decision cancelled in two cases, and a special condition modified in one case. The grounds for modifying the decisions in the 63 cases fell into the following categories:
Risk Assessment
  • In 2 cases, the Board failed to adequately assess the risk and to provide sufficient written reasons to justify its decision.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to apply the principles set out in the Gladue decision in assessing the risk.
  • In 1 case, the Board concluded that the information relating to the offender's suspension was not reliable, yet placed weight on the information.
Breach of Policy
  • In 2 cases, the Board did not have all necessary information in order to conduct a fair risk assessment
  • In 1 case, the Board breached Board policy and failed to conduct a fair and adequate risk assessment of all relevant information, including the offender's program information.
Duty to Provide Sufficient Written Reasons
  • In 5 cases, the Board failed to provide adequate written reasons to explain and justify its decision.
  • In 1 case, the Board did not provide sufficient written reasons and erred in law in concluding that deportation was a sufficient motive to deny parole.
  • In 1 case, the imposition of the special condition was not reasonable as it was not linked to the offender's offence cycle, and the Board did not justify why the condition was necessary to manage the risk.
  • In 2 cases, the Board failed to provide sufficient written reasons to justify the imposition of special conditions.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to render a decision in a timely manner for an ETA and failed to provide an adequate rationale to support its decision.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to provide adequate written reasons, was unreasonable in its analysis of the file information, and failed to apply Section 2.1 of the Policy Manual and to consider the offender's positive institutional conduct.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to provide adequate written reasons for imposing the special condition. In addition, the special condition was worded in a confusing way that could lead to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Erroneous and Incomplete Information
  • In 1 case, the Board based its decision on unsubstantiated suspicions and did not provide adequate written reasons to justify its decision.
  • In 1 case, the written reasons contained errors, did not reflect a fair and adequate risk assessment, and were insufficient to justify the Board's decision.
  • In 1 case, the Board based its decision on erroneous information and provided insufficient written reasons to justify the imposition of a special condition.
  • In 1 case, the Board based its decision on erroneous information and acted unfairly by presuming the offender's guilt relating to certain outstanding charges.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to consider the psychological report that was on file, contrary to what was stated.
  • In 1 case, the Board based its decision on erroneous information by stating that a certain individual was a victim, and erred in law by referring to the person as a victim.
  • In 1 case, the Board erred in regards to the offender's release plan, which was a determining factor in the Board's decision.
  • In 1 case, the Board erred in the date of the psychological report and erroneously reported the offender's risk to re-offend.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to consider available relevant information, which led to prejudice towards the offender.
  • In 1 case, an administrative oversight let to incorrect wording of the condition.
  • In 1 case, the Board's reasons for imposing a special condition were insufficient and did not reflect a fair risk assessment.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to consider the acquittal of the institutional charges which had formed the basis for the referral for detention.
Information Issues
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to adequately assess the accuracy and persuasive value of the offender's version of the events leading to the suspension.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to adjourn the review in order to obtain complete information regarding the offender's suspension and based its decision on unsubstantiated information.
  • In 1 case, the Board rendered a decision in the absence of a specialised psychological report after it had initially adjourned the hearing with the purpose of obtaining the report, and then rendered an in-office decision instead of conducting a subsequent hearing.
  • In 1 case, the Board based its decision on information, which was not shared with the offender neither in the Protected Information Report nor as a gist of information, and did not ensure the information was relevant, reliable and persuasive.
Duty to Act Fairly
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to hold an Elder-Assisted hearing, did not give adequate notice for the hearing, did not consider all available information and did not request missing information.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to hold a hearing for the offender's full parole review.
  • In 1 case, the Board rendered a decision prior to the written representations being received, and considered pre-release information when assessing risk instead of relying on post-release information only.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to consider the offender's Aboriginal background in rendering its decision.
  • In 4 cases, the Board failed to consider and weigh the offender's written representations.
  • In 1 case, the offender was not informed that his postponement request was rejected and the Board proceeded with a file review in his absence.
  • In 1 case, the Board reviewed the case without the Procedural Safeguard Declaration stating that the offender waived his right to have 15 days after documents had been shared, and without knowing whether he wished to submit written representations.
Sharing of Information
  • In 1 case, the Victim Impact Statement was not shared with the offender prior to the hearing and the Victim made comments in addition to the statement submitted.
  • In 1 case, the Addendum to the Assessment for Decision was shared on the day of the hearing, and the Board failed to offer the offender the opportunity to review the document or to postpone the hearing.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to provide reasons as to why only a Protected Information Report would be shared, which did not contain enough information for the offender to be able to respond to.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to ensure that the most recent Correctional Plan Update was shared with the offender.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to ensure all documents were properly translated and shared with the offender prior to the review.
  • In 1 case, the Victim Impact Statement, which was not shared with the offender, was a major determining factor in the decision.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to ensure all documents were properly shared with the offender prior to the review and that his right to provide written representations was respected.
  • In 1 case, the police report, which contained key information not mentioned in other documents, was not shared with the offender.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to ensure all information was shared with the offender prior to the hearing, failed to ensure that the information was relevant, reliable and persuasive, and erred in fact.
Error of Law
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to apply the correct legal test to impose the residency condition and did not provide adequate written reasons to justify its decision.
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to hold a hearing to review the offender's day parole release, when it had no valid waiver on file.
  • In 1 case, the Board erred in law by using the proportionality of the offender's progress as opposed to his crime, and therefore made an inadequate risk assessment.
Apprehension of Bias
  • In 1 case, the Board member's tone was negative and condescending, which created the impression that the decision had been already made.
  • In 1 case, the Board members asked questions and made remarks that prevented the offender from having a fair and impartial hearing and that would lead a reasonable person to think that the case had been pre-determined.
  • In 1 case, the lead Board member's comments gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias leading a reasonable person to conclude that the case had been decided beforehand.
  • In 1 case, one of the Board members had held a senior position in the police force in the small community where the offender committed his offences.
Jurisdiction
  • In 1 case, the Board failed to review the decision by way of a hearing within 90 days.
  • In 1 case, the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by presuming the offender's guilt with regard to his outstanding charge.

Appeal Decision Trends

Figure 28. Federal Appeal Decisions in 2012/13
Federal Appeal Decisions in 2012/13

The chart is a doughnut chart, showing proportions (percentages) of federal appeal decisions in 2012/13 by decision type. Day parole: 39%. Full parole: 28%. Statutory release: 22%. Detention: 7%. ETA: 1%. UTA: 3%.

  • In 2012/13, the number of the federal appeal decisions rendered by the Board increased slightly to 577 (+5), while the number of the provincial appeal decisions decreased to 44 (-10).
  • In 2012/13, the Board rendered more day parole (+20), full parole (+16) and statutory release (+3) appeal decisions, and fewer ETA (-9), UTA (-11) and detention (-14) appeal decisions in comparison with the previous year.
  • In 2012/13, federal day parole appeal decisions accounted for 39% of all federal appeal decisions. This was an increase of 3% compared to 2011/12.
  • Federal full parole decisions accounted for 28% of all appeal decisions made in 2012/13. This was an increase of 3% from the previous year.
  • In 2012/13, provincial day parole appeal decisions accounted for 64% of all provincial appeal decisions, while provincial full parole appeal decisions accounted for 36%.
  • Compared to the previous year, the proportion of federal appeal decisions increased in 2012/13 for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (to 15%; +2%), for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (to 37%; +1%), for those serving sentences for schedule II offences (to 17%; +1%) and those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (to 17%; +1%), while the proportion decreased for offenders serving sentences for murder (to 15%; -5%).
  • Of the 577 federal appeal decisions rendered in 2012/13, 88% of the initial decisions were affirmed and in 11% of cases, a new review was ordered. In one case a change of condition was ordered and in two cases the decision was altered. By comparison, in 2011/12, 91% of federal initial decisions were affirmed and a new review was ordered in 9% of cases, while in two cases a change of condition was ordered.
  • Of the 44 provincial appeal decisions rendered in 2012/13, 36 initial decisions were affirmed (82%), and a new review was ordered in eight cases (18%).
  • In 2012/13, 76% of all federal decisions rendered by the Board were appealable. The number of appealable decisions in 2012/13 increased 8% (to 19,989).
  • In 2012/13, the federal appeal rate decreased to 2.9% from the previous year's rate of 3.1%. Statutory release decisions remained the least likely to be appealed, and ETA and detention decisions were the most likely.
  • Among provincial appeals, day parole decisions were more likely to be appealed than full parole release decisions.

Conditional Release Decisions: Performance

According to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s.102, the Parole Board of Canada may grant parole based on two key considerations: 1) the offender will not, by reoffending, present an undue risk to society before the expiration according to law of the sentence the offender is serving; and 2) the release of the offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the reintegration of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen. Footnote 8 In the determination of all cases, the protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Board (CCRA, s.100.1).

The Board's performance indicators measure whether offenders, who have been granted parole, successfully complete their supervision periods in the community and do not reoffend, violently or non-violently, before and after warrant expiry. When compared with offenders who were released on statutory release, parole is considered the most effective form of conditional release. This section provides information on the performance of offenders on conditional release based on the following indicators: 1) time under supervision, 2) rates of conviction, 3) outcome rates, and 4) post-warrant expiry readmissions.

Time Under Supervision

(Tables 115-121)

The study of the average length of supervision periods provides a useful context to the discussion of performance indicators, particularly in relation to outcomes. This section offers a more in-depth look at the length of supervision periods.

29. Average Lengths of Federal Supervision Periods for Offenders with Determinate Sentences (from 2008/09 to 2012/13)

Average Length of Federal Supervision Periods for Offenders with Determinate Sentences by Race (from 2008/09 and 2012/13)

The graph is in the form of clustered columns showing the average length of federal supervision periods (day parole, full parole and statutory release) in number of months by race for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Day parole (4.6 months average): Aboriginal: 4.4. Asian: 5.3. Black: 5.0. White: 4.6. Other: 5.0. Full parole (23.9 months average): Aboriginal: 19.3. Asian: 28.3. Black: 25.5. White: 23.3. Other: 28.0. Statutory release (6.8 months average): Aboriginal: 5.6. Asian: 8.8. Black: 8.1. White: 7.0. Other: 7.8.

  • The five-year average length of the federal full parole supervision periods was 23.9 months. The five-year average length of the federal day parole supervision periods was 4.6 months, while the five-year average length of the statutory release supervision periods was 6.8 months.
  • Aboriginal offenders, over the five-year period between 2008/09 to 2012/13, had the shortest supervision periods on day parole, full parole and statutory release, while Asian offenders had the longest supervision periods for all three types of release.
  • Female offenders required less time to successfully complete their supervision periods for day parole, full parole and statutory release than male offenders. Their supervision periods on day parole, full parole and statutory release were also revoked significantly earlier than male offenders.
  • Fifty percent of statutory release supervision periods revoked with a violent offence in the last five years (2008/09 to 2012/13) were revoked in the first six months compared to 9% of full parole supervision periods revoked with a violent offence in the same time frame.

Convictions

(Tables 122-125)

Figure 30. Convictions for Violent Offences by Supervision Type

Convictions for Violent Offences by Supervision Type

The graph is in the form of stacked columns, showing the number of convictions for violent offences by supervision type: day parole, full parole and statutory release, as well as the total number of convictions for the period from 1996/97 to 2012/13. Day parole. Year 1996/97: 34. Year 1997/98: 45. Year 1998/99: 37. Year 1999/00: 55. Year 2000/01: 30. Year 2001/02: 36. Year 2002/03: 23. Year 2003/04: 19. Year 2004/05: 32. Year 2005/06: 16. Year 2006/07: 25. Year 2007/08: 18. Year 2008/09: 22. Year 2009/10: 17. Year 2010/11: 10. Year 2011/12: 7. Year 2012/13: 4. Full parole. Year 1996/97: 64. Year 1997/98: 54. Year 1998/99: 42. Year 1999/00: 50. Year 2000/01: 40. Year 2001/02: 36. Year 2002/03: 33. Year 2003/04: 25. Year 2004/05: 36. Year 2005/06: 28. Year 2006/07: 21. Year 2007/08: 22. Year 2008/09: 17. Year 2009/10: 15. Year 2010/11: 18. Year 2011/12: 9. Year 2012/13: 6. Statutory release. Year 1996/97: 229. Year 1997/98: 214. Year 1998/99: 201. Year 1999/00: 215. Year 2000/01: 227. Year 2001/02: 200. Year 2002/03: 222. Year 2003/04: 213. Year 2004/05: 200. Year 2005/06: 178. Year 2006/07: 213. Year 2007/08: 211. Year 2008/09: 150. Year 2009/10: 148. Year 2010/11: 120. Year 2011/12: 112. Year 2012/13: 92. Total. Year 1996/97: 327. Year 1997/98: 313. Year 1998/99: 280. Year 1999/00: 320. Year 2000/01: 297. Year 2001/02: 272. Year 2002/03: 278. Year 2003/04: 257. Year 2004/05: 268. Year 2005/06: 222. Year 2006/07: 259. Year 2007/08: 251. Year 2008/09: 189. Year 2009/10: 180. Year 2010/11: 148. Year 2011/12: 128. Year 2012/13: 102. The chart is followed by a note: The year 2012/13 is shown but not used in calculations, because the number of convictions will often fluctuate higher during the 12 to 18 months after a fiscal year ends because outstanding charges often take that long to be resolved by the courts.

Note: The year 2012/13 is shown but not used in calculations, because the number of convictions will often fluctuate higher during the 12 to 18 months after a fiscal year ends because outstanding charges often take that long to be resolved by the courts.

  • Over the ten-year period, between 2002/03 and 2011/12, convictions for violent offences by offenders on conditional release decreased 54%. Offenders on statutory release accounted for 81% of all convictions for violent offences during that period, followed by offenders on full parole (10%) and offenders on day parole (9%).

A look at the rates of conviction for violent offences per 1,000 supervised offenders provides a more comprehensive picture of offenders' performance on conditional release.

Figure 31. Rates of Convictions for Violent Offences per 1,000 Supervised Offenders

Rates of Conviction for Violent Offences per 1,000 Supervised Offenders

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the rates of convictions for violent offences per 1,000 supervised offenders by supervision type: day parole, full parole and statutory release for the period from 1996/96 to 2012/13. Day parole. Year 1996/97: 33. Year 1997/98: 36. Year 1998/99: 24. Year 1999/00: 35. Year 2000/01: 21. Year 2001/02: 28. Year 2002/03: 18. Year 2003/04: 15. Year 2004/05: 26. Year 2005/06: 12. Year 2006/07: 19. Year 2007/08: 14. Year 2008/09: 18. Year 2009/10: 13. Year 2010/11: 8. Year 2011/12: 5. Year 2012/13: 3. Full parole. Year 1996/97: 15. Year 1997/98: 13. Year 1998/99: 10. Year 1999/00: 11. Year 2000/01: 9. Year 2001/02: 8. Year 2002/03: 8. Year 2003/04: 6. Year 2004/05: 9. Year 2005/06: 7. Year 2006/07: 6. Year 2007/08: 6. Year 2008/09: 4. Year 2009/10: 4. Year 2010/11: 5. Year 2011/12: 3. Year 2012/13: 2. Statutory release. Year 1996/97: 96. Year 1997/98: 86. Year 1998/99: 80. Year 1999/00: 77. Year 2000/01: 82. Year 2001/02: 70. Year 2002/03: 76. Year 2003/04: 72. Year 2004/05: 67. Year 2005/06: 58. Year 2006/07: 67. Year 2007/08: 67. Year 2008/09: 45. Year 2009/10: 46. Year 2010/11: 37. Year 2011/12: 32. Year 2012/13: 26. The chart is followed by a note: The year 2012/13 is shown but not used in calculations, because the number of convictions will often fluctuate higher during the 12 to 18 months after a fiscal year ends because outstanding charges often take that long to be resolved by the courts.

Note: The year 2012/13 is shown but not used in calculations, because the number of convictions will often fluctuate higher during the 12 to 18 months after a fiscal year ends because outstanding charges often take that long to be resolved by the courts.

  • Over the ten-year period from 2002/03 to 2011/12, offenders on statutory release were almost ten times more likely to commit a violent offence during their supervision periods than offenders on full parole, and almost four times more likely to commit a violent offence than offenders on day parole.
  • Over the past five years (from 2007/08 to 2011/12), offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence while on conditional release, whereas offenders serving sentences for murder were the least likely. When looking at the information by release type, offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence on day parole, full parole and statutory release. Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences were the least likely to be convicted of a violent offence on full parole and on statutory release, while offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences were the least likely to be convicted of a violent offence on day parole.
  • Over the same five-year period, Aboriginal offenders were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence while on conditional release, and Asian offenders were the least likely.
  • The number of convictions for violent offences by offenders on conditional release in 2011/12 was 41% lower than the ten-year average between 2002/03 and 2011/12. In fact, the total number of convictions in each of the last five years was below the ten-year average.
  • In the last five years (2007/08 to 2011/12), convictions for violent offences decreased in all regions: Atlantic (-60%), Quebec (-48%), Ontario (-55%), Prairie (-44%) and Pacific (-44%).

Outcome

(Tables 126-159)

  • Successful completion Footnote 9 -supervision periods that are completed without a breach of condition or a new offence;
  • Revocation for breach of condition-a positive intervention, which reduces the risk of reoffending;
  • Revocation with offence-a negative end to the supervision period, which results in a new conviction. Footnote 10

Factors influencing outcomes are diverse and complex. However, there are strong and persistent indicators that offenders released on parole as a result of a rigorous risk-assessment are more likely to successfully complete their supervision periods than offenders released on statutory release.

In reviewing the outcome rate information, it should be noted that the number of revocations with offence will often fluctuate higher during the 12 to 18 months after a fiscal year ends because outstanding charges often take that long to be resolved by the courts. The Parole Board of Canada adjusts its revocation with offence rates when offenders are convicted for new offences that occurred during their supervision period.

Outcome rates provided in this section contain the data for APR supervision periods that ended in 2011/12 and 2012/13 for offenders who had been released on APR day and full parole prior to March 28, 2011, when Bill C-59 abolished the APR process for first-time federal non-violent offenders. In 2011/12, the Board rendered no APR pre-releases decisions. In 2012/13, as a result of the Whaling v. Canada court decision, the Pacific region continued processing APR cases, which had been initiated before March 28, 2011. This resulted in 17 releases on APR day parole and 20 releases on APR full parole (including graduations from APR day parole to full parole) in 2012/13 in the Pacific region. (Please consult the Appendix for more details.)

Figure 32. Successful Completion Rates for Federal Conditional Release

Federal Offender Population

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the successful completion rates (percentages) for offenders on federal day parole, federal full parole and statutory release supervision periods for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Day parole. Year 2008/09: 84. Year 2009/10: 86. Year 2010/11: 88. Year 2011/12: 88. Year 2012/13: 89. Full parole. Year 2008/09: 74. Year 2009/10: 75. Year 2010/11: 76. Year 2011/12: 79. Year 2012/13: 85. Statutory release. Year 2008/09: 59. Year 2009/10: 61. Year 2010/11: 62. Year 2011/12: 62. Year 2012/13: 61.

*Includes determinate sentences only.

  • In 2012/13, successful completion rates have improved for offenders on day parole (+5%), full parole (+11%) and statutory release (+2%) when compared to five years ago (2008/09). When compared to the previous year, successful completion rates declined for offenders on statutory release in 2012/13.
  • When compared with the successful completion rates of full parole supervision periods, the successful completion rates on statutory release supervision periods were not only significantly lower, but the statutory release supervision periods were shorter. Over the last five years, 53% of all successfully completed statutory releases were less than six months compared with 1.4% of successfully completed full parole supervision periods. The majority of successfully completed supervision periods on full parole (93%) were for periods of more than one year.
  • Over the last five years, the successful completion rate on APR full parole was four percentage points lower than the rate on regular full parole. When compared with statutory release, the successful completion rate on statutory release was 20% lower than the rate on regular full parole and 16% lower than the rate on APR full parole.
  • During the five-year period (2008/09 to 2012/13), the difference between successful completion rates on regular day parole and APR day parole was on average less than a percentage point.

Figure 33. Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates for Federal Conditional Release

Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates for Federal Conditional Release

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the rates (percentages) of revocation for breach of condition for offenders on federal day parole, federal full parole and statutory release supervision periods for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Day parole. Year 2008/09: 13. Year 2009/10: 11. Year 2010/11: 10. Year 2011/12: 10. Year 2012/13: 9. Full parole. Year 2008/09: 18. Year 2009/10: 17. Year 2010/11: 17. Year 2011/12: 15. Year 2012/13: 11. Statutory release. Year 2008/09: 29. Year 2009/10: 27. Year 2010/11: 27. Year 2011/12: 28. Year 2012/13: 31.

*Includes determinate sentences only.

  • Over the last five years, revocation for breach of condition rates on federal day and full parole have been steadily decreasing, while the revocation for breach of condition rate on statutory release increased in 2011/12 and 2012/13 after being on the decline.
  • Offenders released on statutory release were far more likely to have had their releases revoked because of a breach of condition than offenders on day parole or full parole during each of the last five years.

Figure 34. Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release

Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the rates (percentages) for the total number of revocations with offence for offenders on federal day parole, federal full parole and statutory release supervision periods for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Day parole. Year 2008/09: 4. Year 2009/10: 3. Year 2010/11: 2. Year 2011/12: 2. Year 2012/13: 2. Full parole. Year 2008/09: 9. Year 2009/10: 8. Year 2010/11: 7. Year 2011/12: 6. Year 2012/13: 4. Statutory release. Year 2008/09: 12. Year 2009/10: 12. Year 2010/11: 12. Year 2011/12: 10. Year 2012/13: 9.

  • Total revocation with offence rates decreased for all federal conditional release supervision populations. Over the last five years, the rates for statutory release were on average four times higher than the rates for day parole and one and a half times higher than the rates for full parole.

Figure 35. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release

Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the rates (percentages) of revocation with violent offence for offenders on federal day parole, federal full parole and statutory release supervision periods for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Day parole. Year 2008/09: 0.7. Year 2009/10: 0.6. Year 2010/11: 0.3. Year 2011/12: 0.3. Year 2012/13: 0.1 Full parole. Year 2008/09: 0.9. Year 2009/10: 0.8. Year 2010/11: 1.0. Year 2011/12: 0.5. Year 2012/13: 0.3. Statutory release. Year 2008/09: 2.5. Year 2009/10: 2.4. Year 2010/11: 2.1. Year 2011/12: 2.0. Year 2012/13: 1.5.

*Includes determinate sentences only.

  • Over the last five years, the revocation with violent offence rates were, on average, five times higher for offenders on statutory release than for offenders on day parole, and almost three times higher than for offenders on full parole. The rates of revocation with violent offence for federal day and full parole and statutory release have been on the decline and continued to decline in 2012/13.
  • When comparing the rates, it should be noted that the revocation with violent offence rates on statutory release were not just higher than those for full parole supervision periods, they also occurred earlier. Twelve percent of statutory release supervision periods revoked with a violent offence between 2008/09 and 2012/13 were revoked in the first three months, while no full parole supervision period was revoked with a violent offence in the first three months during the same time period.
  • Of the federal day parole supervision periods that had been revoked with a violent offence in the last five years, 14% were revoked in the first three months. The average length of day parole supervision periods in the last five years was slightly over five months.

Outcomes on provincial day and full parole supervision periods demonstrated a similar picture as the outcomes of federal day and full parole.

Figure 36. Successful Completion Rates for Provincial Parole

Successful Completion Rates for Provincial Parole

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing successful completion rates (percentages) for offenders on provincial day and full parole for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Day parole. Year 2008/09: 72. Year 2009/10: 80. Year 2010/11: 81. Year 2011/12: 88. Year 2012/13: 85. Full parole. Year 2008/09: 78. Year 2009/10: 83. Year 2010/11: 81.Year 2011/12: 79. Year 2012/13: 84.

  • Over the last five years, the successful completion rates for offenders on provincial day parole have been improving with the exception of 2012/13, when the rate decreased 3%. The successful completion rate on provincial full parole increased 5% in 2012/13 in comparison with the previous year.

Figure 37. Revocation for Breach of Conditions Rates for Provincial Parole

Federal Offender Population

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the rates (percentages) for the total number of revocations with offence for offenders on provincial day parole and full parole supervision periods for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Day parole. Year 2008/09: 4.1. Year 2009/10: 1.3. Year 2010/11: 2.4. Year 2011/12: 0.5. Year 2012/13: 1.0. Full parole. Year 2008/09: 1.9. Year 2009/10: 1.2. Year 2010/11: 2.4. Year 2011/12: 0.7. Year 2012/13: 2.0.

  • In three of the last five years, provincial day parolees were more likely to have their parole revoked due to a breach of condition than provincial full parolees.

Figure 38. Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Provincial Parole

Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Provincial Parole

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the rates (percentages) for the total number of revocations with offence for offenders on provincial day parole and full parole supervision periods for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Day parole. Year 2008/09: 4.1. Year 2009/10: 1.3. Year 2010/11: 2.4. Year 2011/12: 0.5. Year 2012/13: 1.0. Full parole. Year 2008/09: 1.9. Year 2009/10: 1.2. Year 2010/11: 2.4. Year 2011/12: 0.7. Year 2012/13: 2.0.

  • The total revocation with offence rates for provincial parole increased in 2012/13: the total revocation with offence rate increased 0.5% on provincial day parole and 1.3% on provincial full parole.

Figure 39. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Provincial Parole

Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Provincial Parole

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the rates (percentages) of revocation with violent offence for offenders on provincial day parole and full parole supervision periods for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Day parole. Year 2008/09: 0.5. Year 2009/10: 0.0. Year 2010/11: 1.0. Year 2011/12: 0.5. Year 2012/13: 0.5. Full parole. Year 2008/09: 0.0. Year 2009/10: 0.0. Year 2010/11: 0.0. Year 2011/12: 0.7. Year 2012/13: 1.0.

  • Very few provincial offenders have had their paroles revoked because of violent reoffending during the last five years. Five offenders on provincial day parole and two offenders on provincial full parole were convicted of a violent offence in the last five years.

Outcome on Day Parole

Federal Day Parole
  • In the last five years, the successful completion rates of federal day paroles have improved, reaching 89% in 2012/13.
  • During the five-year period between 2008/09 and 2012/13, the successful completion rate for offenders released on APR day parole was slightly higher (87.2%) than for offenders released on regular day parole (86.9%).
  • In comparison with the previous year, successful completion rates on federal day parole improved slightly for all offence types in 2012/13, except for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences, where the rate decreased half a percentage point.
  • Between 2008/09 and 2012/13, successful completion rates on federal day parole were the highest for Asian offenders (averaging 95%) and the lowest for Aboriginal offenders (averaging 83%). In 2012/13, successful completion rates either improved (for Aboriginal, Black, White offenders and offenders of Other category) or remained relatively unchanged (for Asian offenders).
  • In 2012/13, successful completion rates on federal day parole improved slightly to 89% for male offenders and to 91% for female offenders in comparison with the previous year.
  • In 2012/13, successful completion rates on federal day parole improved in all regions: Atlantic (to 84%; +1%), Quebec (to 93%; +1%), Ontario (to 92%; +1%), Prairie (to 85%; +2%) and Pacific (to 92%; +4%). The Quebec region has had the highest successful completion rate on federal day parole over the past five years (91%) and the Atlantic region, the lowest (82%).
  • In 2012/13, revocation with offence rates on federal day parole increased slightly for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (to 0.8%; +0.2%), and decreased for offenders serving sentences for murder (to 0.2%; -0.4%), schedule I-non-sex (to 1.8%; -0.7%) and schedule II offences (to 1.1%; -0.2%), while it remained stable for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (at 3.7%).
  • In 2012/13, the revocation with violent offence rate on federal day parole continued to decline and reached 0.1%. In the last five years, the rate of violent reoffending was below the national average (0.4%) in the Quebec and Ontario regions, and above the national average in the Prairie and Pacific regions. The rate in the Atlantic region was the same as the national average.
  • In the last five years, the revocation with violent offence rates were the highest for Aboriginal and White offenders (0.4%) and the lowest for Asian offenders (0.1%).
  • Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences had the highest rate of violent reoffending in the last five years (0.9%), while offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences had the lowest (0.2%).
Provincial Day Parole
  • In 2012/13, the successful completion rate on provincial day parole decreased to 85% (-3%). The rates decreased in the Atlantic (to 77%; -11%) and Prairie (to 94%; -2%) regions, and increased in the Pacific (to 86%; +2%) region. The total revocation with offence rates increased slightly in the Atlantic (to 1.7%) and Pacific regions (to 0.9%) and decreased in the Prairie region (to 0%) compared to 2011/12.
  • As of April 14, 2013, one provincial offender was convicted of a violent offence on day parole in 2012/13.
  • In the last five years, the rates of violent reoffending on provincial day parole were very low. Between 2008/09 and 2012/13, four offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences and one offender serving a sentence for a non-scheduled offence, all males, had their provincial day paroles revoked because of a violent offence.

Outcome on Full Parole

Outcome on full parole is measured separately for offenders serving determinate sentences and for offenders serving indeterminate sentences. Indeterminate sentences are considered ‘successful completions' for statistical purposes when the offender dies. For this reason, these cases are shown separately from those of offenders serving determinate sentences.

Federal Full Parole: Determinate Sentences
  • The successful completion rates of federal full paroles have been consistently improving over the last five years, reaching 85% (+11%) in 2012/13.
  • In the last five years, the successful completion rate on APR full parole was on average four percentage points lower than the rate on regular full parole.
  • In 2012/13, the successful completion rates on full parole improved for offenders serving sentences for schedule II (to 88%; +7%) and non-scheduled (to 83%; +12%) offences, while the rates decreased for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex (to 96%; -2%) and schedule I-non-sex (to 78%; -2%) offences.
  • In 2012/13, the successful completion rates on federal full parole increased for Aboriginal (to 70%; +2%), Asian (to 92%; +8%), Black (to 90%; +8%) and White (to 85%; +7%) offenders.
  • In 2012/13, the successful completion rates on federal full parole improved for male (to 85%; +6%) and female (to 92%; +9%) offenders.
  • Compared to 2011/12, the successful completion rates on federal full parole have improved in all regions in 2012/13, while the revocation with offence rates decreased.
  • In the last five years, the rates of violent reoffending on federal full parole were above the national average (0.7%) in the Atlantic, Quebec and Pacific regions, while the rates in the Ontario and Prairie regions were below the national average.
  • In 2012/13, the rates of violent reoffending on federal full parole increased slightly for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (to 1.4%; +0.5%), and decreased for offenders serving sentences for schedule II (to 0%; -0.4%) and non-scheduled offences (to 0%; -0.6%). No schedule I-sex offender was convicted of a violent offence while on federal full parole in the last five years.
  • When looking at the five-year period (2008/09-2012/13), Aboriginal offenders had the highest revocation with the violent offence rate (1.3%), and Asian offenders the lowest (0.2%).
  • In 2012/13, the rate of violent reoffending by male offenders on federal full parole decreased slightly (to 0.3%). No female offenders had their federal full parole supervision period revoked in 2012/13.
Federal Full Parole: Indeterminate Sentences
  • Between 1994/95 and 2012/13, 2,461offenders serving indeterminate sentences had completed 2,826 federal full parole supervision periods. As of April 14, 2013, 57% of the supervision periods were still active (supervised), 18% had ended because the offender had died while on parole, 14% were revoked for a breach of condition, 7% were revoked as the result of a non-violent offence, and 4% were revoked as the result of a violent offence.
  • The average length of federal full parole supervision periods for offenders serving indeterminate sentences was 12.1 years.

Figure 40. Revocation Rates for Federal Offenders Serving Indeterminate Sentences on Full Parole (between 1994/95 and 2012/13)

Revocation Rates for Federal Offenders Serving Indeterminate Sentences on Full Parole (between 1994/95 and 2012/13)

The chart is in the form of chart lines showing revocation for breach of condition rates, revocation with non-violent offence rates and revocation with violent offence rates for offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole between 1994/95 and 2012/13 in relation to the length of time on full parole. The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that the highest rates of revocation for breach of condition, with non-violent offence and with violent offence occur early during the full parole supervision periods, and the rates gradually decline the longer the offender stays on full parole.

  • Over the last 19 years, the majority of revocations for breach of condition and revocations with offence for offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole occurred within the first five years of the federal full parole supervision periods, and the number of revocations gradually decreases afterward. Thus, the likelihood of having a supervision period revoked drops significantly the longer the offender stays on full parole.
  • Over the last 19 years, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 1.6 times more likely to have died than to have had their supervision periods revoked for having committed a new offence, and 4.3 times more likely to have died than to have had their supervision periods revoked with a violent offence. The longer the offender stays on full parole the more likely it is that the offender will die than commit a new offence.

Figure 41. Comparison of Revocation Rates for Offenders on Federal Full Parole between 1994/95 and 2012/13

Comparison of Revocation Rates for Offenders on Federal Full Parole between 1994/95 and 2012/13

The graph is in the form of clustered columns, comparing the rates (percentages) of revocation for breach of condition, total revocation with offence rates and revocation with violent offence rates for offenders on full parole serving indeterminate sentences and those serving determinate sentences averaged over the period between 1994/95 and 2012/13. Revocation for breach of condition rates: indeterminate sentences, 14; determinate sentences, 17. Total revocation with offence rates: indeterminate sentences, 11; determinate sentences, 12. Revocation with violent offence rates: indeterminate sentences, 4; determinate sentences, 2. The chart is followed by a note: Between 1994/95 and 2012/13, the average length of full parole supervision periods for offenders serving determinate sentences was 23.9 months compared to 12.1 years for offenders serving indeterminate sentences.

Note: Between 1994/95 and 2012/13, the average length of full parole supervision periods for offenders serving determinate sentences was 23.9 months compared to 12.1 years for offenders serving indeterminate sentences.

  • Compared to offenders serving determinate sentences on full parole, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 21% less likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a breach of condition, 6% less likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a new offence, but twice as likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a violent offence.

Provincial Full Parole

  • In 2012/13, the successful completion rate for provincial full parole increased to 84% (+5%). Increases were reported in the Atlantic (to 78%; +2%) and Pacific (to 96%; +14%) regions, and a slight decrease was reported in the Prairie region (to 81%; -0.3%).
  • In the last five years, the rates of violent reoffending on provincial full parole were generally very low. One offender serving a sentence for a schedule I-non-sex offence and one offender serving a sentence for a non-scheduled offence had their provincial full paroles revoked because of a violent offence.

Outcome on Statutory Release

Figure 42. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates on Statutory Release by Offence Type

Federal Offender Population

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the revocation with violent offence rates (percentages) for offenders on statutory release supervision periods by offence type for the five-year period 2008/09 and 2012/13. Schedule I-sex. Year 2008/09: 0.8. Year 2009/10: 0.8. Year 2010/11: 0.9. Year 2011/12: 0.5. Year 2012/13: 0.4. Schedule I-non-sex. Year 2008/09: 3.8. Year 2009/10: 3.5. Year 2010/11: 3.1. Year 2011/12: 3.1. Year 2012/13: 2.2. Schedule II. Year 2008/09: 0.7. Year 2009/10: 1.1. Year 2010/11: 0.7. Year 2011/12: 0.3. Year 2012/13: 0.3. Non-schedule. Year 2008/09: 1.5. Year 2009/10: 1.6. Year 2010/11: 1.5. Year 2011/12: 1.4. Year 2012/13: 1.1.

  • Over the last five years, the successful completion rate for offenders on statutory release increased to 61% (+2%), while the revocation for breach of condition rate increased to 31% (+2%).
  • Over the last five years, offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences were the most likely to successfully complete their statutory release supervision periods (77%), and schedule I-non-sex offenders were the least likely (56%).
  • Over the last five years, Asian offenders were the most likely to successfully complete their statutory release supervision periods (76%), and Aboriginal offenders were the least likely (53%).
  • Female offenders were more likely than male offenders to successfully complete their statutory release supervision periods in the last five years.
  • In 2012/13, the revocation with violent offence rate on statutory release decreased to 1.5% (-0.5%), driven primarily by the drop in the rate for male offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (-0.8%). No female offender, as of April 14, 2013, had had their statutory release supervision period revoked because of a violent offence in 2012/13.
  • The rates of violent reoffending on statutory release decreased in 2012/13 in the Quebec (-0.7%), Ontario (-0.7%) and Pacific (-1.3%) regions, and remained relatively stable in the Atlantic and Prairie regions compared to 2011/12. Averaged over the last five years, the rates of violent reoffending in the Quebec and Pacific regions were higher than the national average (2.1%), while the rates in the Atlantic and Ontario regions were lower than the national average. The rate in the Prairie region was the same as the national average.
  • The rates of violent reoffending on statutory release decreased in 2012/13 in the Quebec (-0.7%), Ontario (-0.7%) and Pacific (-1.3%) regions, and remained relatively stable in the Atlantic and Prairie regions compared to 2011/12. Averaged over the last five years, the rates of violent reoffending in the Quebec and Pacific regions were higher than the national average (2.1%), while the rates in the Atlantic and Ontario regions were lower than the national average. The rate in the Prairie region was the same as the national average.
  • Over the last ten years, the successful completion rate on statutory release for offenders who had a day and/or full parole supervision period prior to a statutory release supervision period on the same sentence was on average 12% higher than the rate for offenders who had no prior supervision period. Two possible explanations for this are:

Figure 43. Successful Completion Rates for Statutory Release With and Without a Prior Day and/or Full Parole on the Same Sentence

Successful Completion Rates for Statutory Release With and Without a Prior Day Parole and/or Full Parole on the Same Sentence

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the successful completion rates (percentages) for offenders who completed statutory release with a prior day and/or full parole supervision periods on the same sentence, and those who completed statutory release with neither prior day nor full parole supervision period on the same sentence for the ten-year period 2003/04 to 2012/13. The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that the successful completion rate on statutory release was higher for offenders who had a prior day and/or full parole compared to those who had neither day nor full parole on the same sentence.

  1. Offenders that had a day or full parole supervision period prior to statutory release are less likely to reoffend and this is part of the reason they had the prior parole supervision periods.
  2. Offenders that had a day or full parole supervision period prior to statutory release have learned from their time in the community and are thus more likely to successfully complete statutory release.
    • In the last ten years, the successful completion rate on statutory release was the highest for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, averaging 73% for those without prior day and/or full parole supervision periods and 82% for those with a prior day and/or full parole supervision period. The lowest successful completion rate was reported for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences, averaging 51% for those without prior day and/or full parole supervision periods and 62% for those with a prior day and/or full parole supervision period.
    • In the last ten years, violent reoffending on statutory release was significantly lower for offenders who had a prior day and/or full parole supervision period than for those who did not. Approximately, four out of five revocations with a violent offence on statutory release were for offenders who did not have a prior day and/or full parole supervision period prior to their statutory release. Similar findings were reported for all offence types, gender, race and regions.

Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission

(Tables 160-172)

The post-warrant expiry readmission analysis provides an important insight into the offender's ability in the long term to live a crime-free life in the community after completion of his or her sentence. This information is useful for strategic planning and assessment of the effectiveness of the law, policy and operations.

Figure 44. Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission on a Federal Sentence (as of March 31, 2013)

Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission on a Federal Sentence (as of March 31, 2013)

The graph is in the form of chart lines with markers, showing the post-warrant expiry readmission rates (percentages) for federal offenders who completed their sentences on full parole, statutory release or were released at warrant expiry between 1992/93 and 2012/13 with years 1997-98 to 2001-02 (ten to fifteen years after sentence completion) highlighted. Full parole. Year 1992/93: 12. Year 1993/94: 14. Year 1994/95: 13. Year 1995/96: 12. Year 1996/97: 12. Year 1997/98: 8. Year 1998/99: 7. Year 1999/00: 9. Year 2000/01: 8. Year 2001/02: 8. Year 2002/03: 8. Year 2003/04: 7. Year 2004/05: 6. Year 2005/06: 7. Year 2006/07: 7. Year 2007/08: 5. Year 2008/09: 4. Year 2009/10: 2. Year 2010/11: 3. Year 2011/12: 1. Year 2012/13: 0. Statutory release. Year 1992/93: 33. Year 1993/94: 34. Year 1994/95: 35. Year 1995/96: 33. Year 1996/97: 34. Year 1997/98: 33. Year 1998/99: 32. Year 1999/00: 32. Year 2000/01: 32. Year 2001/02: 30. Year 2002/03: 32. Year 2003/04: 31. Year 2004/05: 30. Year 2005/06: 29. Year 2006/07: 27. Year 2007/08: 26. Year 2008/09: 20. Year 2009/10: 17. Year 2010/11: 13. Year 2011/12: 8. Year 2012/13: 2. Warrant Expiry. Year 1992/93: 44. Year 1993/94: 41. Year 1994/95: 38. Year 1995/96: 39. Year 1996/97: 29. Year 1997/98: 39. Year 1998/99: 34. Year 1999/00: 32. Year 2000/01: 35. Year 2001/02: 33. Year 2002/03: 37. Year 2003/04: 33. Year 2004/05: 35. Year 2005/06: 29. Year 2006/07: 24. Year 2007/08: 25. Year 2008/09: 23. Year 2009/10: 18. Year 2010/11: 8. Year 2011/12: 7. Year 2012/13: 6.

  • Ten to fifteen years after sentence completion (for sentences completed between 1997/98 and 2001/02), 25% of offenders had returned on a federal sentence as of March 31, 2013.
  • Over the long-term (for sentences completed between 1997/98 and 2001/02), offenders released at warrant expiry were almost four and a half times more likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence than offenders who completed their sentences on full parole. Offenders released on statutory release were only slightly less likely to be readmitted on a federal sentence after their sentence completion than offenders released at warrant expiry.
  • When looking at the readmission rate for a violent offence (for sentences completed between 1997/98 and 2001/02), offenders released at warrant expiry were ten times more likely to return to a federal institution because of a new violent offence than offenders who completed their sentences on full parole, and one and a half times more likely than offenders who completed their sentences on statutory release.
  • Over the long term (for sentences completed between 1997/98 and 2001/02), offenders who completed their sentences on full parole were more likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence for a non-violent offence than a violent offence, while offenders released at warrant expiry and those who completed their sentences on statutory release were more likely to be readmitted for having committed a violent offence than a non-violent offence.
  • Over the long term (for sentences completed between 1997/98 and 2001/02), offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences who completed their sentences either on full parole, statutory release or were released at warrant expiry were the most likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence, and schedule I-sex offenders were the least likely.

Figure 45. The Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission Rate 10 to 15 years after Sentence Completion* (%)

Offence Type Full Parole Statutory Release Warrant Expiry
Schedule I-sex 2.5 12.4 28.1
Schedule I-non-sex 8.3 33.2 38.7
Schedule II 7.2 25.1 40.0**
Non-Scheduled 11.5 44.9 62.2**

* For sentences completed between 1997/98 and 2001/02.
** Low numbers

  • Over the long term, of offenders who completed their sentences either on full parole, statutory release or were released at warrant expiry, Aboriginal offenders were the most likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence.
  • During the same time period, offenders from the Atlantic region who completed their sentences on either full parole (11%) or statutory release (37%) had the highest rates of readmission on a federal sentence, as did offenders who were released at warrant expiry in the Quebec region (44%). The lowest rates were reported in the Pacific region for offenders who completed their sentences on full parole (5%) and in the Ontario region for offenders who completed their sentences on statutory release (29%) or were released at warrant expiry (30%).

Conditional Release Openness and Accountability

(Tables 173-178)

The Parole Board of Canada is responsible under the CCRA for the provision of information to victims of crime and assistance to those who wish to observe PBC hearings or to gain access to the decision registry. Effectiveness in these areas of service and support is a crucial part of the Board's efforts to be accountable to the public and to build credibility and understanding of the conditional release program.

On June 13, 2012, Bill C-10 entrenched in law the right of victims to present a statement at parole hearings, previously a matter of PBC policy. Increased public awareness and various campaigns in previous years promoting victim rights may have contributed to increases in the number of PBC contacts with victims, victims presentations at hearings as well as decisions requested from the Decision Registry by victims.

In reviewing the information within this section, it should be noted that there will be some variances between regions and some significant changes within regional numbers. This is a result of different recording methods between the regions as well as the efforts the Board has made over the last few years to improve information services for victims and the public and to improve its data collection methods.

Information Services to Victims

Figure 46. Parole Board of Canada Contacts with Victims

Parole Board of Canada Contacts with Victims

The graph is in the form of columns, showing the number of Parole Board of Canada contacts with victims for the period from 1996/97 to 2012/13. Year 1996/97: 6,525. Year 1997/98: 8,043. Year 1998/99: 9,883. Year 1999/00: 11,177. Year 2000/01: 12,718. Year 2001/02: 14,013. Year 2002/03: 14,270. Year 2003/04: 15,263. Year 2004/05: 15,479. Year 2005/06: 16,711. Year 2006/07: 21,434. Year 2007/08: 20,457. Year 2008/09: 20,039. Year 2009/10: 22,181. Year 2010/11: 22,483. Year 2011/12: 21,449. Year 2012/13: 22,475.

  • In 2012/13, the Parole Board of Canada had 22,475 contacts with victims, an increase of 5% from the previous year. Contacts with victims increased in the Ontario (+42%) and Quebec (+4%) regions, while they decreased in the Atlantic (-9%), Prairie (-2%) and Pacific (-8%) regions.
  • In the last five years, the PBC had 108,627 contacts with victims. The Pacific region had the highest proportion (29%), followed by the Ontario (23%), Prairie (18%), Quebec (17%) and Atlantic (14%) regions.
  • As of March 31, 2013, the number of victims that had registered to receive information from the PBC and CSC was 7,585, a 4% increase from the previous year

Observers at PBC Hearings

Figure 47. Observers at PBC Hearings

Observers at Parole Board of Canada Hearings

The graph is in the form of columns, showing the number of observers at Parole Board of Canada hearings for the period from 1996/97 to 2012/13. Year 1996/97: 705. Year 1997/98: 909. Year 1998/99: 986. Year 1999/00: 1,300. Year 2000/01: 1,163. Year 2001/02: 1,089. Year 2002/03: 1,140. Year 2003/04: 1,080. Year 2004/05: 1,173. Year 2005/06: 1,618. Year 2006/07: 2,055. Year 2007/08: 1,974. Year 2008/09: 1,904. Year 2009/10: 2,234. Year 2010/11: 2,311. Year 2011/12: 2,791. Year 2012/13: 3,524.

  • In 2012/13, the number of hearings with observers increased (to 1,441; +18%), as did the number of observers at the Board's hearings (to 3,524; +26%) compared to 2011/12.
  • In 2012/13, the number of hearings with observers increased in the Atlantic (+51%), Quebec (+60%) and Prairie (+38%) regions, and decreased in the Ontario (-7%) and Pacific (-18%) regions compared to the previous year.
  • In the last five years, 12,764 observers attended PBC hearings.

Victims Speaking at Hearings

Since July 1, 2001, victims of crime have been permitted to read prepared statements at PBC parole hearings. On June 13, 2012, the right of the victims to present a statement at parole hearings was entrenched in law.

  • In 2012/13, victims made 254 presentations at 140 hearings, 31 more presentations than the previous year.
  • The majority of presentations were done in person (90%) followed by presentations via video conferencing (6%), audiotape presentations (3%) and DVD presentations (1%).
  • The major offence of victimization for victims making presentations in 2012/13 was most likely to have been murder, sexual assault or manslaughter.

Access to Decision Registry

  • In 2012/13, the number of decisions sent from the decision registry increased 22% (to 6,646) compared to 2011/12. Increases were reported in the Atlantic (+29%), Quebec (+85%), Ontario (+3%) and Pacific (+12%) regions, whereas the number decreased negligibly in the Prairie region (-0.5%).
  • In the last five years, almost 30,000 decisions have been sent from the decision registry.

Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations

(Tables 179-187)

The Record Suspension and Clemency program involves the review of record suspension applications, the ordering of record suspensions and the making of clemency recommendations.

Record Suspension Program

A record suspension, formerly a pardon, allows people who were convicted of a criminal offence, but have completed their sentences imposed and demonstrated they are law-abiding citizens for a prescribed number of years, to have their criminal record kept separate and apart from other criminal records.

The Criminal Records Act (CRA) originally created in 1970 grants the Parole Board of Canada exclusive jurisdiction to order, refuse to order, or revoke record suspensions for convictions under federal acts or regulations of Canada.

On March 13, 2012, Bill C-10 amending the CRA, replaced the term “pardon” with the term “record suspension” and increased the waiting periods for a record suspension to five years for all summary convictions and to ten years for all indictable offences. Individuals convicted of sexual offences against minors (with certain exceptions) and those who have been convicted of more than three indictable offences, each with a sentence of two or more years, became ineligible for a record suspension.

In 2012/13, the Record Suspension program continued processing pardon applications received before March 13, 2012, as well as processing the record suspension applications received after that date.

Decision Trends

  • In reviewing the data below, it should be noted that due to Bill C-10, all applications received on or after March 13, 2012, are processed as record suspension applications subject to the new requirements of the CRA.

Figure 48. Pardon and Record Suspension Applications

Pardon and Record Suspension Applications

The graph is in the form of clustered bars showing applications received and a chart line showing applications accepted for the ten-year period 2003/04 to 2012/13. The chart, displaying no data labels, shows that the number of pardon applications peaked in 2008/09 and declined slightly afterwards; the number of record suspension applications received in 2012/13 was smaller than the number of pardon applications received in previous years. The chart also shows that the number of applications accepted varied throughout the years, however, proportionately fewer applications were accepted in recent years.

As record suspensions are not fully comparable with pardons (the eligibility criteria for a record suspension are different than for a pardon), comparisons between the year-end reports would be inaccurate. It was reported that the number of record suspension applications in 2012/13 was much lower than the number of pardon applications in the previous years, in part due to the decrease in the number of citizens eligible to apply for record suspensions in 2012/13 (effect of C-10) and in part due to the increase in the processing fee.

  • Between 2002/03 and 2011/12, the Board had been receiving on average more than 25,000 pardon applications a year and accepting more than 20,000 for processing (or 78%).
  • In 2012/13, the PBC made 742 pardon decisions for the applications received in the previous years, resulting in 82% pardons granted, and 18% pardons denied.
  • The average processing time of the pardon applications accepted for processing increased in 2012/13 to 20.4 months (+11.3 months) from the previous year.
  • In 2012/13, the PBC made 6,238 record suspension decisions; 97% of record suspensions were ordered and 3% were refused.
  • In 2012/13, the average processing time of the record suspension applications accepted for processing was 3.7 months for those where final decision was to order a record suspension, and 6.7 months for those where final decision was to refuse to order a record suspension.

Performance and Outcome

Figure 49. Pardon/Record Suspension Revocation/Cessation Rate

Pardon/Record Suspension Revocation/Cessation Rate

The graph is in the form of a histogram, showing a cumulative number of pardons granted/issued and record suspensions ordered in relation to the cumulative pardon/record suspension revocation/cessation rate for the period from 1997/98 to 2012/13. Cumulative number of pardons granted/issued and record suspensions ordered. Year 1997/98: 234,779. Year 1998/99: 240,225. Year 1999/00: 246,116. Year 2000/01: 260,311. Year 2001/02: 276,956. Year 2002/03: 291,392. Year 2003/04: 306,985. Year 2004/05: 329,530. Year 2005/06: 337,883. Year 2006/07: 352,631. Year 2007/08: 377,477. Year 2008/09: 417,105. Year 2009/10: 441,244. Year 2010/11: 453,330. Year 2011/12: 456,600. Year 2012/13: 463,242. Cumulative pardon/record suspension revocation/cessation rate (percentages). Year 1997/98: 2.6. Year 1998/99: 2.8. Year 1999/00: 3.0. Year 2000/01: 3.0. Year 2001/02: 3.0. Year 2002/03: 3.2. Year 2003/04: 3.5. Year 2004/05: 3.4. Year 2005/06: 3.4. Year 2006/07: 4.0. Year 2007/08: 3.9. Year 2008/09: 3.7. Year 2009/10: 3.7. Year 2010/11: 3.8. Year 2011/12: 4.2. Year 2012/13: 4.5.

  • In 2012/13, the number of pardons and record suspensions revoked and those ceased to exist, decreased from the previous year to 1,697 (-17%). It included 991 pardons revoked by the PBC (58%), 697 pardons (41%) and two record suspensions (0.1%) that ceased to exist on RCMP authority and seven pardons that ceased to exist on PBC authority (0.4%).
  • Over the last 15 years, the cumulative pardon/record suspension revocation/cessation rate has remained relatively low; however it increased 0.3% in 2012/13. The increase in the rate in the last five years was due to the decreasing numbers of pardons granted and record suspensions ordered, particularly in the last three years, while the number of pardons revoked in the same time period was higher than in the previous years. Despite these new developments, the pardon/record suspension revocation/cessation rate has been relatively low, indicating that over 95% of pardoned citizens and those who received record suspensions have remained crime free.

Clemency Program

The clemency provisions of the Letters Patent and those contained in the Criminal Code are used in exceptional circumstances, where no other remedy exists in law to reduce exceptionally negative effects of criminal sanctions.

Clemency is requested for a number of reasons, with employment being by far the most frequently used. Other reasons include: perceived inequity, medical condition, immigration to Canada, compassion, financial hardship, etc.

  • In 2012, the PBC received 52 Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) requests, 20 requests more than the previous year.
  • In 2012, the PBC granted RPM in 12 cases and denied RPM in one case.
  • In the last five years, 15 clemency requests have been granted, five have been denied and 107 requests have been discontinued. The majority of requests were discontinued either because the applicant did not provide sufficient information or proof of excessive hardship to proceed with the request or the Minister determined that the clemency request did not warrant investigation as the criteria had not been met.
  • At the end of 2012, there were 79 clemency cases in process.

Internal Services

(Tables 188-190)

As the Government of Canada is committed to the continuous examination of its expenditures to ensure responsible spending, the Board must ensure that its programs are managed effectively and efficiently.

PBC Reference Levels

Figure 50. PBC Reference Levels

<abbr>PBC</abbr> Reference Levels

The graph is in the form of stacked columns showing numbers of PBC reference levels (in millions) by program for the five-year period 2008/09 to 2012/13. Year 2008/09. Conditional Release Decisions: 38.4. Conditional Release Openness and Accountability: 7.1. Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations: 3.1. Year 2009/10. Conditional Release Decisions: 34.0. Conditional Release Openness and Accountability: 6.1. Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations: 2.8. Internal Services: 4.4. Year 2010/11. Conditional Release Decisions: 33.8. Conditional Release Openness and Accountability: 5.7. Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations: 2.1. Internal Services: 4.4. Year 2011/12. Conditional Release Decisions: 38.2. Conditional Release Openness and Accountability: 7.1. Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations: 1.2. Internal Services: 5.7. Year 2012/13. Conditional Release Decisions: 35.6. Conditional Release Openness and Accountability: 5.6. Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations: 0.3. Internal Services: 5.0. The chart is followed by a note: Internal Services in the past were re-allocated on a pro-rata basis to the programs, but since 2009/10 have been shown separately.

Note: Internal Services in the past were re-allocated on a pro-rata basis to the programs, but since 2009/10 have been shown separately.

  • In 2012/13, the total PBC expenditures amounted to $46.5 million, or a $5.7 million decrease compared to 2011/12.
  • The Board has one strategic outcome which is “Conditional Release and Record Suspension Decisions and Decision Processes that Safeguard Canadian Communities”. The Board applies its resources to four programs: Conditional Release Decisions, Conditional Release Openness and Accountability, Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations, and Internal Services. Conditional release decision-making is the most resource intensive area, accounting for 77% of the Board's expenditures.
  • The $0.3 million in expenditures for Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations program is net of revenue. The fee to process a record suspension application is $631. The respendable revenue for the PBC is $470 per application. In 2012/13, accepted record suspension applications generated total revenues of $7,264,873. The PBC portion was $5,411,312.

Human Resources Management

  • As of April 2, 2013, the Board staff consisted of 445 employees, 18% males and 82% females. The highest proportion of female staff was in the Atlantic region (31:3), and the lowest proportion was at the National Office (34:11).
  • For 60% of employees the first official language was English and for 40% of employees it was French. Fifty-one percent (51%) of staff were bilingual.
  • As of April 2, 2013, 4.1% of the Board's staff were Aboriginal and 9.4% percent were visible minorities. Employees with disabilities accounted for 4.6% percent of the Board's staff.
  • As of April 11, 2013, the Board had a total of 85 Board members (43 full-time and 42 part-time).
  • Women represented 32% of all Board members.
  • The first official language of 74% of Board members was English, while French was the first official language of 26% of Board members. Twenty-four percent (24%) of all Board members were bilingual.

Page details

Date modified: