2016-2017 Performance Monitoring Report

List of Figures
Acronyms Used in the Report
Highlights 2016/17
Introduction
The Year at a Glance

Context
• Legislative and Policy Changes
• Implications for the Board

Program Delivery Context

• Federal Offender Population
• Federal Admissions
• Federal Releases
Reviews

Conditional Release Decisions

• Conditional Release Decisions: Decision Trends
  Temporary Absence
  • Day Parole
  • Full Parole
  • Statutory Release
  • Detention
  • Long-Term Supervision
  • Appeals
• Conditional Release Decisions: Performance
  • Time Under Supervision
  • Convictions
  • Outcome
  • Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission

Conditional Release Openness and Accountability

• Information Services for Victims
• Observers at PBC Hearings
• Victims Speaking at PBC Hearings
• Access to Decision Registry

Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations

• Record Suspension Program
• Clemency Program

Internal Services

• PBC Reference Levels
• Human Resources Management

Figure 1. The Federal Offender Population
Figure 2. Annual Changes in the Federal Offender Population
Figure 3. Federal Full Parole and Statutory Release Offender Populations
Figure 4. Offence Profile of the Total Federal Offender Population
Figure 5. Offence Profile of the Federal Incarcerated Offender Population
Figure 6. Offence Profile of the Federal Day Parole Population
Figure 7. Offence Profile of the Federal Full Parole Population
Figure 8. Offence Profile of the Federal Statutory Release Population
Figure 9. Federal Admissions
Figure 10. Federal Releases from Institutions and Graduations to Subsequent Federal Supervision Periods
Figure 11. Graduations from Federal Supervision Periods
Figure 12. Federal Releases on Statutory Release in Relation to Prior Consideration for Parole
Figure 13. Federal and Provincial Reviews
Figure 14. Federal and Provincial Decisions to Delay a Review of a Case
Figure 15. Temporary Absence Release Decisions
Figure 16. Approval/Authorization Rates
Figure 17. Day Parole Grant Rates
Figure 18. Full Parole Grant Rates
Figure 19. Proportion of Federal Releases on Statutory Release Compared to the Incarcerated Population Serving Determinate Sentences
Figure 20. Pre-Release Residency Conditions for Federal Non Violent Offenders
Figure 21. Long-Term Supervision Population
Figure 22. Convictions for Violent Offences on Federal Conditional Release
Figure 23. Rates of Conviction for Violent Offences per 1,000 Supervised Offenders
Figure 24. Successful Completion Rates on Federal Conditional Release
Figure 25. Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates on Federal Conditional Release
Figure 26. Total Revocation with Offence Rates on Federal Conditional Release
Figure 27. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates on Federal Conditional Release
Figure 28. Successful Completion Rates on Provincial Parole
Figure 29. Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates on Provincial Parole
Figure 30. Total Revocation with Offence Rates on Provincial Parole
Figure 31. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates on Provincial Parole
Figure 32. Revocation Rates on Federal Full Parole for Offenders Serving Indeterminate Sentences (between 1994/95 and 2016/17)
Figure 33. Comparison of Revocation Rates on Federal Full Parole (between 1994/95 and 2016/17)
Figure 34. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates on Statutory Release
Figure 35. Successful Completion Rates on Statutory Release With and Without a Prior Day or Full Parole on the Same Sentence
Figure 36. Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission Rates
Figure 37. Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission Rate by Offence Type (for sentences completed between 2001/02 and 2005/06) (%)
Figure 38. Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission Rate by Region (for sentences completed between 2001/02 and 2005/06) (%)
Figure 39. PBC Contacts with Victims
Figure 40. Observers at PBC Hearings
Figure 41. Victims Presentations at PBC Hearings
Figure 42. Pardon and Record Suspension Applications
Figure 43. Pardon/Record Suspension Revocation/Cessation Rate
Figure 44. PBC Reference Levels

Acronyms Used in the Report

Highlights 2016/17

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; the provision of in-depth training on how to assess the risk of reoffending; and the 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. The program provides information to victims and other interested parties within the community, coordinates victims’ and other observers’ attendance at PBC hearings, assists victims in preparing their victim statements and provides 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 as well as 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 as well as human resource services.

The Performance Monitoring Report has been structured to reflect the Board’s four programs.

The report presents information using easy-to-read graphs 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 Departmental Results Report, formerly the Departmental Performance Report.

The Year at a Glance

Context

The Parole Board of Canada operated in a relatively stable environment in 2016/17. There was no new legislation adopted last year that would have a direct impact on the Board. Changes related to previous legislation from 2015/16, as well as those related to Bills C-10 (Omnibus Bill) and C-59 (Abolition of Early Parole) normalized. In assessing risk, the Board continued facing challenges related to an increasingly diverse offender population with progressively longer violent criminal histories, repeated incarcerations, more complex mental health needs and more frequent gang affiliations.

Crime Rates^{Footnote 1} 

Police-reported crime in Canada is measured with the crime rate and the Crime Severity Index (CSI). In 2016, the police-reported crime rate (measured as the volume of police-reported crime relative to the population size) remained relatively unchanged from the previous year (5,905 incidents per 100,000 population). In numbers, approximately, 1.9 million Criminal Code incidents (excluding traffic) were reported to the police in 2016, about 27,700 more than in 2015.

While the overall crime rate was stable in 2016, the crime rates increased for some types of non-violent offences, namely fraud (+14%), identity fraud (+16%) and identity theft (+21%).

The crime rate also increased for some violent offences, namely, sexual violations against children (+30%), violations causing death other than homicide (+14%), commodification of sexual activity, a new offence (+11%), aggravated sexual assault (+6%), forcible confinement or kidnapping (+4%) and a few others.
Statistics Canada reported that the increase in the rate of sexual violations against children coincided with the increases in the number of maximum penalties, likely due to the implementation of Bill C-26 (The Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act)^{Footnote 2}, which came into force in 2015. Police-reported incidents of child pornography continued to rise in 2016, primarily due to the special operations in British Columbia that year. A new offence criminalizing non-consensual distribution of intimate images (created in 2015 following the implementation of Bill C-13 (Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act)) also reported an increase, with Quebec and Ontario accounting for the majority of cases.

In 2016, approximately 95,400 drug offences were reported by police (263 per 100,000 population), a decrease from the previous year. The overall decrease was associated with a relatively large decline in possession of cannabis offences (-12%) and trafficking, production and distribution of cannabis offences (-4%). The crime rate for some other drugs increased, namely possession of heroin (+32%), methamphetamines (+22%), as well as prescription drugs (+7%), including Fentanyl, LSD, etc. The crime rate for possession of methylenedioxyamphetamine (ecstasy) declined (-40%), as did the rate for possession of cocaine (-5%). Cannabis related offences continued to account for the majority of drug offences (58%) in 2016.

The CSI (a measure of the relative seriousness of an offence) increased 1% (to 71) from 2015, following a 5% increase the previous year after being in decline for 11 years. However, it was 29% lower than ten years ago (in 2006). In 2016, the CSI increased in 6 of the 13 provinces and territories, with the greatest increases in Saskatchewan (+9%), Manitoba (+8%), Newfoundland and Labrador (+6%), followed by Nunavut (+4%) and Ontario (+4%). The increase in the CSI in 2016 can be explained by the continuing increase in fraud offences.

Fewer youths (aged from 12 to 17) were accused of crime in 2016 when compared to 2015. The youth Crime Severity index decreased 2%, mostly due to a decline in property crimes. The youth violent CSI increased 5%, however, as more youth were accused of attempted murder, robbery and sexual violations against children than the previous year. The youth violent CSI increased in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Yukon and Ontario.

The CSI (a measure of the relative seriousness of an offence) increased 1% (to 71) from 2015, following a 5% increase the previous year after being in decline for 11 years. However, it was 29% lower than ten years ago (in 2006). In 2016, the CSI increased in 6 of the 13 provinces and territories, with the greatest increases in Saskatchewan (+9%), Manitoba (+8%), Newfoundland and Labrador (+6%), followed by Nunavut (+4%) and Ontario (+4%). The increase in the CSI in 2016 can be explained by the continuing increase in fraud offences.

Fewer youths (aged from 12 to 17) were accused of crime in 2016 when compared to 2015. The youth Crime Severity index decreased 2%, mostly due to a decline in property crimes. The youth violent CSI increased 5%, however, as more youth were accused of attempted murder, robbery and sexual violations against children than the previous year. The youth violent CSI increased in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Yukon and Ontario.

Victimization Rates^{Footnote 3}

In addition to collecting police-reported data, Statistic Canada conducts the General Social Survey (GSS) on a five-year basis. The GSS collects data about victimization of Canadians in the 10 provinces and three territories. The surveys in the territories are conducted separately for methodological reasons.

The 2014 GSS on Criminal Victimization conducted in ten provinces reported that the rates of victimization decreased over the previous decade; one in five Canadians aged 15 years and older reported that they or their household had been the victim of a crime in the 12 months preceding the 2014 survey compared to one in four in 2004.

The rate of violent victimization in the provinces declined for the first time since 1999 for both women and men. Compared to 2004, it decreased by 28%. The most significant decreases were robbery (-39%), physical assault (-35%) and household victimization, while the victimization rates for sexual assault remained relatively stable. A weapon, most often a knife, was present in just over one quarter (26%) of the violent incidents (excluding incidents of spousal violence). Firearms were reported in 10% of the violent incidents.

Women reported a higher rate of victimization than men in 2014. This difference was mainly due to the sexual assaults victimization rate, where the majority of victims were women.

It was reported that violent incidents, excluding those related to spousal violence, happened most often in a private residence (34%), often the victim’s home, or in a commercial or institutional establishment (39%). Just over one-quarter (27%) of incidents of violent victimization occurred at the victim’s place of work. The majority of incidents involved victims working in the fields of education, law, social and community services or health.

As in 2004, younger Canadians (15-24) showed higher rates of violent victimization compared to older Canadians. Other contributing factors associated with violent victimization were drug use, mental health issues, physical or sexual victimization during childhood, history of homelessness, living in a neighborhood with low degree of social cohesion and self-identifying as a sexual minority.

Indigenous people’s victimization rates in the provinces continued to exceed those of non-Indigenous origin, especially for break-ins and sexual assaults. Violent victimization rates were especially high amongst Indigenous females. However, the GSS 2014 reported a decrease in Indigenous victimization over the previous five years. Slightly less than one in three (30%) Indigenous people reported that they or their household had been victimized in the 12 months preceding the survey, down from 38% in 2009.

The majority of victims did not report their victimization to the police (79%). The proportion of incidents reported to police in 2014 was slightly under (31%) the one recorded in 2004 (34%). In general, victims of more serious crimes were more prone to contact the police.

About three-quarters of victims (74%) reported being emotionally affected by the incident, anger being the most frequent emotional reaction to violence (30%). One in seven victims of violent crime reported experiencing long-term effects consistent with a post-traumatic stress disorder and one-quarter of victims of violent crime were unable to continue their daily activities for at least one day to receive care for an injury, regroup emotionally, replace stolen property, take legal action or for some other reason.

Criminal victimization of Canadians in the territories declined as well from 34% in 2009 to 28% in 2014, however it still remains higher than the rate in the provinces. One-third of territorial residents reported being abused by an adult before age 15, which was deemed a significant factor in subsequent victimizations. Three-quarters of these victims were Indigenous.

Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System^{Footnote 4}

The GSS sub-study on Social Identity asked Canadians aged 15 years and older to indicate their levels of confidence in criminal justice institutions, including the police, the justice system and the courts. The police claimed the highest level of citizens’ trust among justice agencies with just over three quarters of Canadians living in the provinces expressing that they have a great deal or some confidence in police (76%). By comparison, 83% of Canadians living in the territories expressed confidence in their local police in 2014, an increase from 71% in 2009. As for confidence in the justice system and the courts, 57% of Canadians in the provinces and 66% of Canadians in the territories indicated that they have a great deal or some confidence in the justice system and courts.

The GSS on Criminal Victimization also collected information on police performance. Compared to 2004, Canadians’ perceptions of their local police have become more favourable. The majority believed that they were doing a good job at each of the six specific measures: being approachable and easy to talk to, ensuring the safety of citizens, promptly responding to calls, treating people fairly, enforcing the laws and providing information on ways to prevent crime. Almost three-quarters of Canadians in the provinces found the police approachable and easy to talk to (73%) and sixty-two percent (62%) thought that they were doing a good job providing information on crime prevention. By comparison, 52% of Canadians in the territories reported that the police were doing a good job.

In order to provide a more comprehensive picture of citizens’ perceptions of police performance, these findings need to be integrated with the findings about the likelihood of reporting an incident to the police. Slightly less than one-third of Canadians living in the provinces and about 36% of Canadians living in the territories stated they had reported crime incidents to the police. Most of the victims did not report the incident because they felt that it was not important enough, while some believed that the police would not consider the incident important enough to open an investigation, that they would not be able to identify the perpetrator or find the stolen property, or that there was a lack of evidence for meaningful police action.

As for the justice system, women expressed slightly higher levels of confidence in criminal justice institutions compared to men, especially in relation to the police. Older Canadians, visible minorities and immigrants also reported higher levels of confidence in the justice system.

Overall, a higher income and education level were associated with higher levels of confidence in the police, the justice system and the courts. Indigenous people in the provinces reported lower levels of confidence in the justice system and the courts (43% for Indigenous Canadians compared to 58% for non-Indigenous Canadians). Indigenous people in the territories reported somewhat higher numbers (63% for Indigenous compared to 68% for non-Indigenous).

Canadians who had not reported incidents to the police were less favourable of their local police performance compared to those who had. Positive perceptions of police performance for the first group decreased with subsequent victimizations.

Very few victims approached formal victim services, such as shelters, crisis centres, victim support services or social workers. Only about 14% of Canadians in the provinces and 5% of Canadians in the territories who had been victimized reported using such services in the five years preceding the 2014 survey.

Legislative and Policy Changes

Over the course of 2016/17, the Parliament did not adopt any bills that would amend criminal justice legislation relevant to conditional release or that would affect the Board's workload in a significant way.   

On June 1, 2016, sections 45 to 51 of Bill C-32 (Victims Bill of Rights Act) (An act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts) came into force. The Bill received Royal Assent on April 23, 2015, and all sections of the bill, except 45 to 51, came into force on July 22, 2015. 

The legislation created statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime in relation to access to information, protection, participation and restitution in the justice process, and established a complaint process for victims. If there is an inconsistency between the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and any other federal Act enacted on or after the day that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights comes into force, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights will prevail. In cases where the inconsistency is with the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act, the Access to Information Act, or the Privacy Act, the rights under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights will be balanced with these other quasi-constitutional statutes.

The provisions and amendments in relation to the CCRA were as follows:

• The definition of “victim” was expanded and now includes any individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as a result of an offence committed under criminal legislation and statutes, or a surviving family member or a custodian.
• Victims are now permitted to have access to information about the offender’s correctional progress, the offender’s release, destination and conditions of the release, as well as the offender’s most recent photograph.
• A victim’s right to request and receive a copy of the PBC release decision pertaining to the victim’s offender is now entrenched in law.
• If a victim has provided the PBC with a statement, Board members are required to impose any condition on an offender with a long-term supervision order that is reasonable and necessary to protect the victim or provide reasons why they did not do so.

The two new provisions were as follows:

• If the PBC imposed conditions on the offender in order to protect a victim, it will be required to take reasonable steps to inform the victim and consider their concerns before removing or varying any of these conditions.
• Upon request, the Board must provide victims who did not attend the parole hearing with access to an audio recording of the most recent day or full parole hearing of the offender who harmed them.

Implications for the Board 

Bill C-32 impacted the Board’s workload in the conditional release openness and accountability program, in the area of information services for victims of crime. The Board has been implementing new victim services products and modifying existing practices to ensure full and comprehensive implementation of the legislative provisions pertaining to Bill C-32.

Some bills adopted in the previous years continued affecting the Board’s workload in 2016/17. Namely, Bill C-479 (An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders) impacted the Board’s case management processes in relation to scheduling of legislated reviews for parole and detention for certain violent offenders. The Board updated its scheduling system to reflect longer ineligibility periods for these cases. A significant decrease was reported for subsequent detention reviews in 2016/17, which decreased six fold compared to the previous year, as the ineligibility period was increased from one to two years. Changes in workload were less traceable for parole cases, where new ineligibility periods do not preclude offenders from reapplying before their new scheduled dates if they have the support of CSC.

A triple increase in the ETA workload in 2015/16 due to Bill C-483 (An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence)), which came into force at the end of 2014/15, was reversed in 2016/17, as the number of ETA decisions decreased (-13%). This Bill required the Board to review ETA cases for all offenders serving life as a minimum sentence for murder until they successfully complete their first ETA release after their day parole eligibility dates. A big portion of this ETA workload was previously under the authority of the CSC institutional heads.

Program Delivery Context

Federal Offender Population

Tables 1-15

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), those temporarily absent from the institution on some form of temporary release (Temporary Absence or Work Release), and those remanded in federal custody^{Footnote 5} .
• Conditional Release: includes those federal offenders conditionally released on day parole, full parole and statutory release, including those deported, those on long term supervision orders 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 generally decreasing with the exception of the last two years, the offender population has been fluctuating over the same period. These out-of-sync patterns indicate that there are more complex events at play, which the crime rates analysis alone cannot sufficiently explain. Over the last ten years, the criminal justice system was under reform in a number of areas, which affected the number of individuals accused, the number of individuals charged and the number of individual convicted of an offence. More specifically, an introduction of minimum mandatory sentencing and new offences, longer sentences for certain offences, and variances in admissions and releases due to legislative changes all play a role.

Figure 1. The Federal Offender Population

• On April 9, 2017, the total federal offender population decreased 0.3% compared to the previous year (the snapshot of April 10, 2016). The federal incarcerated offender population decreased 4.4%, while the federal conditional release population increased 6.1%.
• 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.

Figure 2. Annual Changes in the Federal Offender Population

In the three years between 2011/12 and 2013/14, annual increases in the incarcerated offender population were larger than those in the conditional release offender population. This was in part related to the abolition of accelerated parole review (APR) in 2010/11. Significant proportions of non violent offenders were released later in their sentences, resulting in a higher than usual increase in the federal conditional release population in 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17.

• The federal incarcerated offender population decreased further in 2016/17 in the Quebec (-13%) region after a 5.0% decrease a year earlier. Modest decreases were reported in the Ontario (-4%) and Prairie (-3%) regions. The federal incarcerated offender population increased slightly in the Atlantic region (+1%), while it increased modestly in the Pacific region (+3%) when compared to the previous year.
• In 2016/17, the federal conditional release offender population increased in the Quebec (+4%), Ontario (+10%), Prairie (+10%) and Pacific (+2%) regions following increases in 2015/16. The numbers decreased slightly in the Atlantic region (-0.3%).

It is important to note that annual changes vary from region to region. This is in part attributed to the offence profile of the regional offender population. The Pacific region, for example, reported the largest proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for murder in 2016/17 (33%) and the lowest proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for drug offences (11%) and for non scheduled offences (10%). The Prairie region reported the smallest proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for murder (14%), while the highest for those serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (42%). The Quebec and Ontario regions reported the highest proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (20% each). The Ontario region also reported the highest proportion of sex offenders (14%), while the lowest proportion of those serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (32%). The Atlantic region had the highest proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for non scheduled offences (15%) and the lowest proportion of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (10%).

• Across Canada, the overall increase in the federal conditional release population was driven by the federal day parole population, which increased 16% in 2016/17, and to a smaller but significant degree, by the federal full parole population, which increased 9%. The number of federal offenders on statutory release decreased (-1%) in 2016/17 when compared to the previous year.
• The increase in the federal day parole population was driven primarily by the Quebec region (+32%). The increase could be attributed to the availability of new parole programs in the region as well as in-reach conducted by the Board with offenders raising awareness about conditional release.
• The Prairie region reported the highest increase in the statutory release population (+12%), followed by the Ontario region (+3%). The statutory release population decreased in other regions.
• In 2016/17, the federal full parole population increased in all regions: Atlantic (+15%), Quebec (+7%), Ontario (+14%), Prairie (+8%) and Pacific (+1%) regions. The Ontario and Quebec regions accounted for over a half of the increase.
• As for the provincial conditional release population in 2016/17, it decreased by 4 individuals to 147 offenders. Eighty (80) provincial offenders were on full parole, while 67 provincial offenders were on day parole.

Figure 3. Federal Full Parole and Statutory Release Offender Populations

While traditionally the federal full parole population has been larger than the statutory release population, this trend was reversed in 2011/12 and the statutory release population remained larger than the full parole population for the following two years. However, in 2014/15, the federal full parole population surpassed the statutory release population once again.

In 2016/17, federal full parolees accounted for 43% of the federal conditional release population compared to 36% of offenders on statutory release.

• The number of Indigenous federal inmates increased again in 2016/17 and their proportion increased to 23%. White offenders represented 58% of the total federal inmate population; Asian offenders represented 5%, Black offenders, 8% and offenders in the Other category, 6%.
• By comparison, the proportion of federal offenders on conditional release remained the same for Indigenous (at 17%), Asian (at 6%) and Black (at 8%) offenders, decreased for White offenders (to 63%) and increased for offenders in the Other category (to 5%).
• In 2016/17, the highest proportion of Indigenous offenders was in the Prairie region: 48% of federal male inmates and 62% of federal female inmates in the Prairie region were Indigenous. By comparison, 34% of federal male offenders on conditional release and 47% of federal female offenders on conditional release in the Prairie region were Indigenous.
• Overall, federal male offenders represented 93% of the federal conditional release population and 95% of the federal incarcerated offender population in 2016/17. Female offenders represented 7% of federal offenders on conditional release and 5% of the federal inmate population.
• As of April 9, 2017, 9,343 federal offenders on conditional release were serving their sentences in Canada and 404 federal offenders had been deported. Offenders who have been deported or extradited are listed as active offenders by CSC until completion of their sentences.

Figure 4. Offence Profile of the Total Federal Offender Population

• On April 9, 2017, 21% of federal offenders were serving sentences for murder, 12% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 36% were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, 18% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 12% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• In 2016/17, the changes in the proportions were not significant for federal offenders serving sentences for murder, schedule I-non-sex and schedule II offences.
• The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences decreased 0.5 percentage point.
• The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences decreased 0.8% in 2016/17 compared to 2015/16. The decrease follows a trend from previous years, when the number and the proportion of these offenders in federal custody were decreasing after peaking in 2010/11. The proportion of admissions of these offenders decreased 0.7% last year.

Figure 5. Offence Profile of the Federal Incarcerated Offender Population

• On April 9, 2017, 22% of federal incarcerated offenders were serving sentences for murder, 13% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 40% were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, 14% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 12% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences decreased 0.6%. While the proportion of admissions of these offenders increased 1.8% in 2016/17 (on both, warrants of committals and due to revocations), a higher proportion of those admitted in the previous years were released on day parole in 2016/17 (+3.0%), decreasing their proportion of the incarcerated population.
• The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences increased 0.7% in 2016/17, despite a decrease in actual numbers. As it is the largest proportion of offenders, it can tolerate actual changes in numbers without affecting significantly its proportion particularly when other offender groups report same or larger increases or decreases than offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences.
• The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences decreased negligibly 0.2% in 2016/17, following a slight decrease in admissions of these offenders to federal custody last year (-0.5%).
• In 2016/17, the proportion of federal incarcerated offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences decreased 0.9% compared to 2015/16. This is due to at least two factors: a decrease in admissions for this group (-0.8%) as well as an increase in releases on day parole (+4.5%) in 2016/17.
• The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for murder increased by 1.0%; however the increase was inflated by decreases in the proportions of other offender groups. The actual number of incarcerated offenders serving sentences for murder increased by four individuals in 2016/17 when compared to 2015/16.

Figure 6. Offence Profile of the Federal Day Parole Population

• On April 9, 2017, 18% of federal offenders on day parole were serving sentences for murder, 9% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 31% were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, 29% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 14% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• The proportion of federal offenders on day parole serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences in 2016/17 increased 2.1% compared to 2015/16, partly due to an increase in the proportion of federal admissions of these offenders on warrants of committal two years earlier (+1.4%) and partly to an increase in the proportion of releases on day parole (+3.1%).  
• The increase in the number and proportion of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences on day parole was so disproportionately large that it offset increases in other offender groups. In 2016/17, the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for murder on day parole decreased (-1.0%) compared to the previous year, however the actual number of these offenders on day parole increased by 25 individuals.
• As for federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences on day parole, their proportion decreased 0.3% in 2016/17, however the number increased by fifteen individuals.  
• In 2016/17, the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences on day parole decreased 1.7% from the previous year, while the actual number increased by 40 individuals. The decrease in the proportion, despite an increase in number, was again due to a disproportionately large increase in the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences on day parole in 2016/17.
• Compared to the previous year, the proportion of offenders on day parole serving sentences for non-scheduled offences increased 0.9% in 2016/17. As admissions were stable for this offender group two years ago, the increase could be explained by a higher number of releases of these offenders on day parole in 2016/17, as well as by a grant rate, which increased from 73% in 2015/16 to 79% in 2016/17.

Figure 7. Offence Profile of the Federal Full Parole Population

• On April 9, 2017, 40% of federal offenders on full parole were serving sentences for murder, 6% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 16% were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, 28% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 11% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• There were no significant changes in 2016/17 in the proportions of non-violent offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences on full parole.
• The proportion decreased for offenders serving sentences for murder on full parole in 2016/17 (-2.2%). While the number of these offenders on full parole grew by 52 individuals, their proportions on full parole was deflated by a larger increase in the proportion of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (+1.9%).  
• The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences on full parole increased 1.9% in 2016/17 compared to the previous year, which was the result of a 1.3% increase in the proportion of graduations of these offenders from day parole to full parole the same year.
• The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences increased 0.6%, likely due to an increase in releases of these offenders on full parole, as well as by a 3.8% increase in the grant rate, admissions being stable.

Figure 8. Offence Profile of the Federal Statutory Release Population

• On April 9, 2017, 13% of federal offenders on statutory release were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 51% were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, 20% were serving sentences for schedule II offences, and 16% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• The largest change in the proportion of offenders on statutory release was reported for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, which increased 1.8% in 2016/17 compared to last year. The number increased by 54 individuals, however large decreases in two other offender groups inflated the proportion of this offender group.
• A large decrease in the proportion of offenders on statutory release was reported for those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (-2.4%). The decrease follows an overall decrease in the admissions of these offenders to federal custody two years earlier (-2.5%), who would have now been entitled to statutory release or full parole.
• A modest decrease was reported for federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (-0.6%), following their decrease in releases on statutory release in 2016/17 and their increased proportion on full parole.
• The proportion increased for federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences on statutory release (+1.2%). Similarly, the actual increase was modest (39 individuals); however the proportion was inflated by large decreases in two other offender groups.

Federal Admissions

Tables 16-23

There are two types of admissions to federal custody: admissions on warrants of committal (new federal sentence) and admissions due to revocations (same sentence). Admissions that do not fall strictly into these two categories, such as federal-provincial transfers, interprovincial exchange of service, transfers from foreign countries, etc. are placed into the category Other.

• The total number of federal admissions in 2016/17 decreased 6% (to 7,201).

Figure 9. Offence Profile of the Federal Statutory Release Population

*Includes transfers from foreign countries, exchanges of service, supervision terminated, etc.

• Federal admissions on initial warrants of committal increased 0.3% (to 3,792) in 2016/17, while federal admissions on repeat warrants of committal decreased 4.1% (to 1,114) compared to the previous year.
• Federal admissions due to revocations decreased significantly (-15%; to 2,192) in 2016/17.
• In 2016/17, only the Atlantic region reported increases in both federal admissions on warrants of committal (+3%) and in federal admissions due to revocations (+18%). The Prairie and Pacific regions reported increases in federal admissions on warrants of committal (+2%; +5%) and decreases in federal admissions due to revocations (-19%; -23%). In the Quebec and Ontario regions, decreases were reported for both federal admissions on warrants of committal (-7%; -2%) and federal admissions due to revocations (-13%; -25%).
• In the last five years (between 2012/13 and 2016/17), Asian offenders were the most likely to be admitted on initial warrants of committal and White offenders were the most likely to be admitted on repeat warrants of committal. Indigenous offenders were the most likely to be admitted to federal custody on all types of revocations.
• During the same time period, female federal offenders were more likely to be admitted on initial warrants of committal than male federal offenders, while less likely to be admitted on repeat warrants of committal and on all types of revocations.
• When looking at the offence profile in 2016/17, there were no substantial changes in admissions for offenders serving sentences for murder, schedule I-non-sex, schedule II and non-scheduled offences (all under a percentage point). The proportion of federal admissions increased for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (+1.8%) in 2016/17 compared to 2015/16.
• The average age of a federal offender admitted to custody has increased slightly over the last ten years. In 2016/17, 42% of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal (first-time federal offenders) were for offenders between 18-29 years of age, and 27% were for offenders between 30-39 years of age. By comparison, in 2006/07, first-time federal offenders between 18-29 years of age accounted for 49% of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal, and those between 30-39 years of age accounted for 26% of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal.
• The majority of first-time Black offenders admitted to federal custody over the last five years were between 18 to 29 years of age, accounting for 60% of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal for this group. By comparison, 58% of admissions of first-time federal Indigenous offenders were for offenders between 18 to 29 years of age during the same reference period. The proportions were smaller for the other offender groups: 40% for Asian offenders, 37% for White offenders and 44% for offenders in the Other category.

Federal Releases

Tables 24-32

This section discusses federal releases of offenders directly from institutions and graduations of offenders to subsequent 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 to subsequent 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 warrant expiry.

In this section, federal releases and graduations are discussed together to demonstrate how the Board uses discretionary release to facilitate the 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 10. Federal Releases from Institutions and Graduations to Subsequent Federal Supervision Periods

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

• In 2016/17, federal releases directly from institutions decreased 2% (from 7,962 to 7,834) compared to the previous year. Graduations to subsequent federal supervision periods increased 7% (from 3,045 to 3,263).
• By region, federal releases directly from institutions increased in the Quebec (+5%) and Prairie (+2%) regions and decreased in the Atlantic (-2%), Ontario (-8%) and Pacific (‑11%) regions in 2016/17. Graduations to subsequent federal supervision periods increased in the Atlantic (+1%), Quebec (+15%), Ontario (+14%) and Pacific (+6%) regions, while they decreased in the Prairie region (-2%). 
• In 2016/17, federal releases on discretionary release increased significantly (+12% on day parole and +13% on full parole). Federal releases on statutory release decreased (‑7%). These changes point to a return to the pre-2011/12 patterns in releases, prior to Bill C‑59 (Abolition of Early Parole). 

Figure 11. Graduations from Federal Supervision Periods

In 2016/17, the number of day parole supervision periods that were continued increased 2%, graduations from day parole to full parole increased 15%, and graduations from day parole to statutory release increased 4% when compared to the previous year.

Some of the above changes were related to the APR‑affected offenders. However, in 2016/17, graduations from day parole to full parole were primarily driven by offenders serving sentences for schedule I‑non-sex offences. 

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

• The five-year data indicate that the proportion of offenders who had no parole review prior to their release on statutory release has increased significantly in the last five years:
  
  
  1. The proportion of federal releases to statutory release where parole was previously granted/directed increased from 25% in 2012/13 to 26% in 2016/17.
  2. The proportion of federal releases to statutory release where parole was previously denied/not directed decreased from 29% in 2012/13 to 20% in 2016/17.
  3. The proportion of federal releases to statutory release with no prior parole decision increased from 46% in 2012/13 to 55% in 2016/17.

Figure 12. Federal Releases on Statutory Release in Relation to Prior Consideration for Parole

Between 2012/13 and 2016/17, the substantial increase in the number of releases on statutory release where there were no prior parole decisions was driven by offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (from 53% in 2012/13 to 62% in 2016/17). Indigenous offenders accounted for 38% of those releases.

Compared to the previous year, the proportions of releases on statutory release where there was no prior parole decision stabilized for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences, the majority of whom prior to the abolition of the APR were automatically reviewed and usually directed to parole. In 2016/17, the proportion decreased four percentage points for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (from 39% in 2015/16 to 35% in 2016/17), while still higher compared to the pre-Bil C-59 levels (22% in 2012/13). The proportion increased slightly for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (from 54% in 2015/16 to 55% in 2016/17).

• Federal releases at warrant expiry without prior parole decision fluctuated in the last five years. In 2016/17, 89% of releases at warrant expiry, as well as releases on long-term supervision at warrant expiry, were releases where there was no prior parole review.
• Overall, in 2016/17, a total of 7,303 federal offenders were released from institutions and 2,508 federal offenders graduated from one federal supervision period to another.

Reviews

Tables 33-39

Over the past five years, efforts have been made to streamline PBC’s case management processes, which resulted in changes in reporting practices. Therefore, caution should be exercised when comparing totals over the past five years as the definition of workload has changed.

Figure 13. Federal and Provincial Reviews

• In 2016/17, the Board conducted 14,799 federal reviews and 652 provincial reviews. Compared to the previous year, the number of federal reviews decreased 2%, while the number of provincial reviews increased 1%.

• In 2016/17, federal reviews for discretionary release (reviews for release on day or full parole) increased 8% (from 5,767 in 2015/16 to 6,244 in 2016/17). The Quebec region accounted for the majority of the increase, which reported a 20% increase, followed by the Ontario (+8%), Pacific (+6%) and Prairie (+3%) regions. The number of reviews for discretionary releases decreased in the Atlantic region (-1%).

• Reviews with an Indigenous Cultural Advisor increased 49% (from 405 in 2015/16 to 605 in 2016/17). The increase is associated with the in-reach to Indigenous offenders conducted by the Board.

• In 2016/17, having conducted 15,451 federal and provincial reviews, the Board rendered 22,296 decisions. The number of Board decisions decreased 1% compared to 2015/16.

• In 2016/17, the Board made more day and full parole decisions (+10%; +11%) than the previous year, and fewer statutory release decisions (-8%).

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

Figure 14. Federal and Provincial Decisions to Delay a Review of a Case

• In 2016/17, the Board rendered 3,866 decisions to accept a waiver of a federal parole decision (-7%); 4,802 decisions to accept a postponement of a federal parole decision (+8%); 934 decisions to accept a withdrawal of a federal parole application (-14%); and 516 decisions to reschedule a federal parole review (+67%).
• In 2016/17, the Board rendered three decisions to accept a waiver of a provincial parole decision (one decision fewer than the year before); 75 decisions to accept a postponement of a provincial parole decision (26 decisions more than the year before); 503 decisions to accept a withdrawal of a provincial parole application (-20%); and 24 decisions to reschedule a provincial parole review (ten decisions more than the previous year).

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 40-44

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

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 the authority to authorize unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) for 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. 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.

Since the adoption of Bill C-483 (An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence)) on December 16, 2014, PBC must approve/authorize all ETAs for offenders serving life as a minimum sentence until the first successful ETA after day parole eligibility. CSC retains the authority to grant ETAs for medical reasons, to attend judicial proceedings or coroner’s inquests for these offenders. CSC has a delegated authority for ETAs for other offenders.

• As a result of Bill C-483, the number of ETA release decisions rendered by the PBC more than tripled in 2015/16 when compared to 2014/15. The number decreased in 2016/17 to 498 (-13%).  
• In 2016/17, the Board rendered 539 UTA release decisions, a decrease of 2% when compared to 2015/16.

Figure 15. Temporary Absence Release Decisions

Figure 16. Approval/Authorization Rates

• The ETA approval/authorization rate decreased from 85% in 2015/16 to 83% in 2016/17.
• Over the last five years, the Atlantic region reported the highest ETA approval/authorization rate (91%), while the Prairie region, the lowest (69%).
• The UTA authorization rate increased to 88% in 2016/17 from 85% in 2015/16.
• Over the last five years, the Quebec region reported the highest UTA authorization rate (87%), while the Pacific region, the lowest (51%).
• The five-year average ETA approval/authorization rate for male offenders was higher than for female offenders (83%; 76%), while the five-year average UTA authorization rate was higher for female offenders (79%; 88%).
• The five-year average ETA approval/authorization rate for Indigenous offenders was seven percentage points lower than the rate for non-Indigenous offenders (77% v. 84%). The five-year average UTA authorization rate was higher for Indigenous offenders than for non-Indigenous offenders (85%; 77%).
• Over the last five years, 99.7% of ETA release decisions rendered by the Board were decisions for offenders serving life sentences with an average ETA approval rate of 82%.
• UTA decisions for lifers accounted for 65% of all UTA decisions rendered by the Board over the last five years, with an average UTA authorization rate of 81%.

Day Parole

Tables 45-58

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 to an institution or a half-way house each night or at another specified interval 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 one-sixth of the sentence for offenders who, according to the law, were entitled to be considered for accelerated parole review.

On March 28, 2011, Bill C-59 abolished the APR process, which resulted in fewer day and full parole reviews in 2011/12, for first-time federal non-violent offenders (those 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 types of offenders rebounded in the following years.

Following court challenges, the abolition of APR has had a smaller effect in the Pacific and Quebec regions. Since 2012, the Pacific region has been processing active APR cases for offenders sentenced or convicted prior to the abolition of APR. In 2013/14, the Quebec region started processing their active APR cases.

On March 20, 2014, following the Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling decision, the accelerated parole review process was reinstated across all regions for offenders sentenced prior to the abolition of APR. In some provinces, however, due to court challenges in their respective jurisdictions, APR was also reinstated for offenders who committed their offences prior to the abolition of APR and were sentenced after the legislation came into force (Quebec in 2016, Ontario in 2015, Manitoba in 2015, Alberta in 2015, British Columbia in 2014).

• In 2016/17, the Board rendered more federal day parole release decisions compared to the previous year (5,016; +9%). This included 83 day parole release decisions following an APR.
• The number of federal day parole release decisions rendered in 2016/17 increased in the Quebec (+21%), Ontario (+9%), Prairie (+4%) and Pacific (+5%) regions and decreased in the Atlantic (-2%) region when compared to the previous year. The increase in the Quebec region was associated with the availability of new community programs.
• The number of provincial day parole release decisions rendered by the Board in 2016/17 increased (to 489; +6%) when compared to the previous year.
• In 2016/17, the number of federal and provincial day parole release decisions rendered following a hearing with an Indigenous Cultural Advisor increased  30% compared to 2015/16.
• In 2016/17, the average proportion of sentence served before the first federal day parole release for offenders serving determinate sentences decreased 1.5 percentage point (to 37%) from the previous year. This was driven primarily by offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences in the Atlantic and Quebec regions.
• Over the last five years, Indigenous offenders had the highest proportion of their sentence served before their first federal day parole release (at 42%), while Asian offenders reported the lowest proportion (at 34%).

Figure 17. Day Parole Grant Rates

• In 2016/17, the federal day parole grant rate (regular and APR) increased 2.9 percentage points to 78% compared to the previous year.
• The federal regular day parole grant rate increased from 75% in 2015/16 to 78% in 2016/17. The federal APR day parole grant rate increased slightly to 96% (from 95.6% in 2015/16 to 96.4% in 2016/17).
• The provincial day parole grant rate increased 2.2 percentage points to 60% in 2016/17.
• By region, the federal day parole grant rate increased in the Quebec (to 76%; +7%), Ontario (to 82%; +2%), Prairie (to 75%; +2%) and Pacific (to 77%; +4%) regions. The rate decreased in the Atlantic region (to 86%; -3%), while remaining the highest.
• In 2016/17, offenders serving sentences for murder reported the highest federal day parole grant rate (89%) and offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, the lowest (56%). Offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences reported the highest provincial day parole grant rate (74%), and offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences reported the lowest (52%).
• In 2016/17, Indigenous offenders reported the lowest federal day parole grant rate (74%), while Asian offenders reported the highest (83%). The provincial day parole grant rate was the lowest for Black offenders (43%) and the highest for Asian offenders (67%).
• Female offenders had a much higher grant rate for federal day parole (90%) and provincial day parole (73%) than male offenders (77%; 59%) in 2016/17.
• In 2016/17, federal offenders serving determinate sentences accounted for 84% of all day parole grants (with a grant rate of 81%), while lifers accounted for 15% of day parole grants (with a grant rate of 89%), and offenders with other indeterminate sentences accounted for one percent of grants (with a grant rate of 13%).
• While the federal day parole grant rate for lifers was 89% in 2016/17, it should be noted that 65% of those decisions were decisions to continue day parole. The day parole grant rate for lifers who were granted federal day parole for the first time was 68%.
• In 2016/17, the federal day parole grant rate following hearings with an Indigenous Cultural Advisor increased to 72%, an increase of 5.2 percentage points compared to the previous year.

Full Parole

Tables 59-76

Full parole is a type of conditional release which allows the offender to serve the remainder of his/her 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 in the following two years, resulting in an increase in the number of full parole release decisions rendered by the Board.

As noted in the previous section, as a result of court challenges, the Pacific and Quebec regions have been processing APR cases for offenders who met the APR eligibility criteria. The Pacific region has been processing these cases since 2012/13 and the Quebec region since 2013/14.

Following the Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling decision on March 20, 2014, accelerated parole review was reinstated across the other regions for offenders who were sentenced prior to March 28, 2011. In 2015/16 and 2016/17, in some provinces, workload increased additionally due to cases of APR-eligible offenders who committed their offences prior to the abolition of the APR legislation and were sentenced after March 28, 2011, following provincial court challenges (Quebec in 2016, Ontario in 2015, Manitoba in 2015, Alberta in 2015, British Columbia in 2014).

• The number of federal full parole release decisions rendered in 2016/17 increased to 4,042 (+11%) compared to the previous year. The total included 126 full parole release decisions following accelerated parole reviews.
• In 2016/17, the number of federal full parole release decisions rendered by the Board increased in all the regions: the Atlantic (+20%), Quebec (+20%), Ontario (+3%), Prairie (+6%) and Pacific (+11%) regions. The Quebec region accounted for the majority of the increase, partly due to availability of new community programs in the region. This did not mean, however, that more offenders were more likely to be released on full parole, as the grant rate in the region remained the same at 28%.
• In 2016/17, the Board rendered two fewer provincial full parole release decisions (278; -1%) compared to the previous year. The numbers decreased in the Atlantic (-16%) and Pacific (-3%) regions and increased in the Prairie region (+22%).
• The number of federal full parole release decisions following a hearing with an Indigenous Cultural Advisor increased in 2016/17 to 259 (+31%).
• The proportion of sentence served prior to first federal full parole release for federal offenders serving determinate sentences decreased slightly in 2016/17 (-0.8%) to 46% when compared to the previous year. The decrease was driven primarily by offenders serving sentences for schedule II (-1.3%) and non-scheduled (-0.6%) offences, the APR-affected population. The proportions increased for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (+1.6%) and schedule I-non-sex offences (+0.4%).
• In 2016/17, Indigenous offenders served the highest proportion of their sentences prior to their first federal full parole release (49%), while offenders in the Other category served the lowest proportion (43%).
• In 2016/17, male offenders served slightly higher proportions of their sentences before being released on their first federal full parole (46%) than female offenders (43%).

Figure 18. Full Parole Grant Rates

• In 2016/17, the federal full parole grant rate (regular and APR) increased 0.5 of a percentage point to 37% when compared to the previous year.
• The federal regular full parole grant rate increased to 35% (from 34% in 2015/16) and the federal APR grant rate increased to 97% (from 90% in 2015/16).
• The provincial full parole grant rate decreased to 36% in 2016/17 from 38% in 2015/16.
• By region, federal full parole grant rates increased in 2016/17 in the Atlantic (to 62%; +2%), Ontario (to 48%; +1%) and Prairie (to 35%; +1%) regions, decreased in the Pacific region (to 26%; -1%) and remained the same in the Quebec region (at 28%) compared to the previous year.
• The federal full parole grant rate following a hearing with an Indigenous Cultural Advisor remained the same at 12% in 2016/17 compared to the previous year.
• In 2016/17, the federal full parole grant rate increased for all offender groups, most notably for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (to 25%, the lowest rate), those serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (to 29%) and offenders serving sentences for murder (to 43%). The rate decreased for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (to 47%, the highest rate), and remained the same for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (at 39%).
• Averaged over the last five years, the provincial full parole grant rate was the highest for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (43%), followed by offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (35%), those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (31%) and those serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (27%).
• Over the last five years, Indigenous offenders reported the lowest federal and provincial full parole grant rates (22%; 17%), while Asian offenders reported the highest rates for federal full parole (48%) and White offenders, for the provincial full parole (38%).
• Over the last five years, female offenders reported higher federal and provincial full parole grant rates (48% and 45%) than male offenders (33% and 32%).
• In 2016/17, federal offenders with determinate sentences accounted for 87% of all full parole grants (with a grant rate of 39%). Lifers accounted for 8% of all full parole grants (with a grant rate of 43%). One offender serving an other indeterminate sentence was granted federal full parole (with a grant rate of 0.1%) in 2016/17.
• In 2016/17, the number of residency conditions imposed on federal full parole increased from 71 to 94 compared to the previous year. Offenders released on full parole APR accounted for 14% of these decisions.

Statutory Release

Tables 77-85

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 19. Proportion of Federal Releases on Statutory Release Compared to the Incarcerated Population Serving Determinate Sentences

• The proportion of releases of offenders on statutory release compared to the number of incarcerated offenders entitled to statutory release decreased to 46% compared to the previous year. The decrease in releases on statutory release in 2016/17 was about four times larger than the decrease in the number of incarcerated offenders entitled to statutory release, resulting in a significant drop in the proportion. As noted earlier, a higher proportion of these offenders were released on discretionary release rather than on statutory release in 2016/17.
• The Prairie and Atlantic regions reported the highest proportions of federal releases on statutory release compared to the number of incarcerated offenders entitled to statutory release in 2016/17 (both 53%), while the Ontario region reported the lowest proportion (38%).
• The decrease in the proportion of releases of offenders on statutory release compared to the number of incarcerated offenders entitled to statutory release was reported for all offence types in 2016/17 except for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, where the proportion stayed the same (at 28%), the lowest proportion. The proportions decreased for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (to 49%), offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (to 40%) and those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (to 59%), the highest proportion.
• By race, the proportion was the highest for Indigenous offenders (56%) and the lowest for offenders in the Other category (22%) in 2016/17.
• Female offenders reported a higher proportion of federal releases on statutory release compared to their incarcerated population entitled to statutory release in 2016/17 (48%) than male offenders (46%). 
• The number of residency conditions imposed on statutory release decreased 11% (from 2,303 in 2015/16 to 2,047 in 2016/17), reflecting an overall decrease in the statutory release population. The numbers decreased 12% in the pre-release category (from 2,279 to 2,009) but increased in the post-release category (from 24 to 38).

Increases in the number of residency conditions imposed on statutory release between 2011/12 and 2015/16 could be attributed to the abolition of APR in 2010/11. The decreases in the number of residency conditions imposed on federal full parole APR for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non scheduled offences mirrored increases in the number of residency conditions imposed on statutory release for these offenders during the same time period. In 2016/17, the numbers began regressing to the average.

Detention

Tables 86-94

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.

• As of April 9, 2017, 226 offenders were detained (35 fewer than in 2015/16), 48 had a detention order but had not yet reached their statutory release dates (two fewer than in 2015/16) and 13 had their one chance statutory release revoked and subsequently detained (20 fewer than in 2015/16).
• In 2016/17, the number of referrals for detention decreased 22% to 135 (from 173) compared to 2015/16.
• The detention referral rate (ratio of detention referrals against the total offender population entitled to statutory release in a given year) decreased to 2.6% in 2016/17 (from 3.1% in 2015/16).
• The number of offenders detained following a detention review decreased to 131 (-22%) compared to the previous year, while their proportion remained the same (at 97%). Four (4) offenders (3%) were released on one chance statutory release. No offenders were released on statutory release following a detention review in 2016/17.
• In 2016/17, the Atlantic region reported the highest initial detention rates (100%), while the Ontario region reported the lowest (94%), compared to the national rate of 97%.
• In 2016/17, 100% of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences and 95% of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences who were referred for detention were detained. Nine offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences and one offender serving a sentence for a schedule II offence, who were referred for detention in 2016/17, were ordered detained.
• The detention rate for Indigenous offenders was 97% in 2016/17 compared to 98% for White offenders. Ten (10) Black offenders, seven (7) offenders in the Other category and one (1) Asian offender were detained in 2016/17. Two (2) Indigenous offenders, one (1) Asian offender and one (1) White offender were released on one chance statutory release.
• In 2016/17, 97% of male offenders referred for detention were detained and 3% were released on one chance statutory release. No female offenders were referred for detention in 2016/17. In the last five years, 19 women were referred for detention (11 were Indigenous) and all were detained.
• In 2016/17, the Board conducted 36 subsequent annual detention reviews and confirmed detention in 86% of cases, compared to 219 cases in 2015/16 with a confirmation rate of 93%. The drop in cases is related to C-479, which increased the ineligibility period for some violent offenders from one to two years for subsequent detention reviews.
• In the last five years, the Board conducted 1,145 subsequent annual detention reviews, confirming detention in 95% of cases.

Long-Term Supervision

Tables 95-99

The court, upon application by the crown prosecutor, 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.

• On April 9, 2017, 846 offenders had long-term offender designations, which amounts to 3.7% of the total offender population. Of those, 321 offenders with long-term offender designations were still incarcerated; 56 were on statutory release and one was on day parole prior to the commencement of their LTSOs; 455 were in the community under long-term supervision orders and 13 had been deported.

Since 2000, when the first offender was released on a long-term supervision order, the long-term population in the community has been constantly increasing reaching 468 in 2016/17. Thirty-one (31) offenders were released at warrant expiry on long term supervision orders in 2016/17 and 24 were released on long term supervision orders after reaching warrant expiry on conditional release.

Figure 21. Long-Term Supervision Population

• The long-term supervision population increased in four regions in 2016/17: the Atlantic (+2), Quebec (+13), Ontario (+9) and Prairie (+1) regions and decreased in the Pacific region (-3).
• On April 9, 2017, 65% of federal offenders on long-term supervision were those sentenced for schedule I-sex offences, 33% were those sentenced for schedule I-non-sex offences and two percent (2%), sentenced for non-scheduled offences.
• Twenty-seven percent (27%) of offenders on LTSOs were Indigenous, compared to one percent (1%) of Asian offenders, five percent (5%) of Black offenders, 62% of White offenders and four percent (4%) of offenders in the Other category.
• The Board rendered 580 decisions for offenders on long-term supervision orders in 2016/17, a 20% decrease compared to the previous year. This decrease is associated with a policy change in 2015/16, which amended the Board’s authority to impose residency orders on long-term supervision to a maximum duration of 365 days from 180 days.

Following the policy change, the number of post-release residency conditions imposed and prolonged for offenders with long-term supervision orders decreased 43% in 2016/17. A small decrease was also reported in the pre-release category (-14). The total number of residency conditions imposed on long-term supervision orders decreased to 250 (-39%) compared to 2015/16. In other words, while the Board made fewer decisions to impose residency conditions, residency orders were overall for longer periods of time (up to a year).

Appeals

Tables 100-107

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

• In 2016/17, the Appeal Division received a total of 539 applications to appeal federal and provincial conditional release decisions and accepted 457 applications for processing (85%).
• By comparison, in 2015/16, the Appeal Division received a total of 624 applications to appeal federal and provincial conditional release decisions and accepted 520 applications for processing (83%).
• The number of federal appeal applications received in 2016/17 increased in the Atlantic (+10) and Pacific (+3) regions and decreased in the Quebec (-40), Ontario (-48) and Prairie (-14) regions.
• The number of provincial appeal applications received in 2016/17 increased in the Pacific region (+9) and decreased in the Atlantic (-3) and Prairie (-2) regions.
• Of the 431 federal appeal applications accepted for processing in 2016/17, 20 were cancelled and five were withdrawn, leaving 406 federal applications to be processed. Of the 26 provincial appeal applications accepted for processing, one was withdrawn, leaving 25 applications to be processed.

APPEAL DECISIONS

• In 2016/17, the Appeal Division rendered 657 decisions on 515 cases.
• The Appeal Division modified the decision in 132 appeal cases which resulted in a new hearing ordered in 102 cases, a new review ordered in 28 cases and modified special conditions in two cases. The grounds for modifying 131 of 132 cases fall into the following categories in the table below. In the remaining one case, a new review was ordered following a split vote.

APPEAL DECISION TRENDS

• In 2016/17, the number of federal appeal decisions rendered by the Board increased to 627 (+4%), and the number of the provincial appeal decisions increased to 30 (from 17) when compared to the previous year.
• In 2016/17, the Board rendered more day parole (230; +11%), full parole (178; +8%) and statutory release (170; +21%) appeal decisions compared to the previous year. Detention appeal decisions decreased (-7), as well as UTA appeal decisions (-6). There were nine more ETA appeal decisions in 2016/17 compared to 2015/16.
• Proportionately more ETA (5%) and statutory release (26%) appeal decisions were rendered in 2016/17, while the proportions decreased for detention (4%) and UTA (3%) appeal decisions. The proportion of day parole and full parole appeal decisions remained the same (35% and 27%).
• Compared to the previous year, the number of federal appeal decisions increased in 2016/17 for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (+40%), those serving sentences for schedule II offences (+4%) and non-scheduled offences (+23%). The number of appeal decisions decreased for offenders serving sentences for murder (-19%) and offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (-1%).
• Of the 627 federal appeal decisions rendered in 2016/17, 75% of the initial decisions were affirmed, in 25% of cases a new review/hearing was ordered and in two cases a change of condition was ordered. By comparison, in 2015/16, 82% of federal initial decisions appealed were affirmed and a new review/hearing was ordered in 18% of cases; a change of condition was ordered in one case.
• Of the 30 provincial appeal decisions rendered in 2016/17, 24 initial decisions were affirmed (80%), a new review/hearing was ordered in five cases (17%) and a change of condition was ordered in one case.
• In 2016/17, 88% of all federal decisions rendered by the Board were appealable. By comparison, 89% of federal decisions in 2015/16 were appealable. The number of appealable decisions in 2016/17 decreased 2% (to 18,852).
• In 2016/17, the federal appeal rate increased slightly by 0.17 of a percentage point to 3.33% from the previous year’s rate of 3.15%. Detention and temporary absence decisions remained the most likely to be appealed, while statutory release decisions remained the least likely to be appealed.
• The provincial appeal rate increased 1.5 percentage point to 3.6% in 2016/17 from 2.2% in 2015/16. Among provincial appeals, day parole decisions were slightly more likely to be appealed than full parole release decisions.

Conditional Release Decisions: Performance

According to the CCRA 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 6}. 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 and after sentence completion 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 108-114

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 for offenders serving determinate sentences.

• Over the last five years, the average length of federal supervision periods for federal offenders serving determinate sentences was 4.7 months for day parole, 23.4 months for full parole and 7.1 months for statutory release.
• Indigenous offenders serving determinate sentences had the shortest supervision periods on day parole, full parole and on statutory release, while Asian offenders had the longest day parole and statutory release supervision periods, and offenders in the Other category had the longest full parole supervision periods over the last five years.
• Over the last five years, female offenders had shorter federal supervision periods than male offenders. They also had their day parole and statutory release supervision periods revoked earlier than male offenders, either for a breach of condition or with a violent offence.
• Given the differences in the average lengths of federal supervision periods, it takes longer for offenders to successfully complete full parole rather than day parole or statutory release. Over the last five years, 90% of day parole supervision periods and 48% of statutory release supervision periods were successfully completed in the first six months (that is, completed without any revocation) compared to less than one percent of full parole supervision periods that were successfully completed within six months of release. The majority of federal full parole supervision periods that were successfully completed by offenders serving determinate sentences (86%) were over a year long.
• Fifty-six percent (56%) of statutory release supervision periods revoked with a violent offence in the last five years were revoked within six months of release compared to 12% of federal full parole supervision periods revoked with a violent offence in the same time frame.

Convictions

Tables 115-118

Rates of conviction are another useful indicator when assessing the performance of offenders on conditional release. 

In reviewing the rates of conviction information, it should be noted that 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. The Parole Board of Canada adjusts its rates of conviction accordingly.

Figure 22. Convictions for Violent Offences on Federal Conditional Release

Note: The year 2016/17 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 last ten years (between 2006/07 and 2015/16), the number of convictions for a violent offence decreased 63% for offenders on federal conditional release (from 260 in 2006/07 to 97 in 2015/16). Day parolees averaged 12 convictions for violent offences annually and full parolees, 14 convictions, compared to 141 by offenders on statutory release.
• Over the last ten years (between 2006/07 and 2015/16), convictions for violent offences on statutory release accounted for 85% of all convictions by offenders on federal conditional release.

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

Note: The year 2016/17 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 last ten years (between 2006/07 and 2015/16), offenders on statutory release were more than eleven times more likely to commit a violent offence during their supervision periods than offenders on full parole, and four and a half times more likely to commit a violent offence than offenders on day parole.
• Over the past five years (from 2011/12 to 2015/16), offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence on each type of conditional release, whereas offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences were the least likely to be convicted of a violent offence on day parole and statutory release and offenders serving sentences for murder were the least likely to be convicted of a violent offence on full parole.
• Over the same five-year period, Indigenous offenders were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence on full parole and statutory release, while White offenders were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence on day parole. Asian offenders were the least likely to be convicted of a violent offence on statutory release and offenders in the Other category were the least likely to be convicted of a violent offence on day and full parole.
• In the last five years (from 2011/12 to 2015/16), convictions for violent offences on conditional release decreased in all regions. The Quebec and Prairie regions accounted for the majority of all convictions in the last five years.

Outcome

Tables 119-152

Outcome rates provide information on the performance of offenders on conditional release from the start of the supervision period until the end of the supervision period. Supervision periods end in one of three ways:

Successful completion^{Footnote 7}–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^{Footnote 8}–a negative end to the supervision period, which results in a new conviction.

The 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.

Figure 24. Successful Completion Rates on Federal Conditional Release

*Includes determinate sentences only.

• In 2016/17, the successful completion rates increased on federal day parole (to 93%), federal full parole (to 90%) and on statutory release (to 67%).
• When compared with the successful completion rate of full parole supervision periods, the successful completion rates of statutory release supervision periods were not only significantly lower, but the statutory release supervision periods were shorter. Over the last five years, 48% of all successfully completed statutory releases were less than six months compared with less than one percent of successfully completed full parole supervision periods. The majority of successfully completed supervision periods on full parole (86%) were for periods of more than one year. 
• During the five-year period (between 2012/13 and 2016/17), the successful completion rate on federal regular full parole was on average 3.5 percentage points lower than the rate on full parole APR.

Figure 25. Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates on Federal Conditional Release

*Includes determinate sentences only.

• Over the last five years, the revocation for breach of condition rates on federal day and full parole have been generally decreasing.
• 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 26. Total Revocation with Offence Rates on Federal Conditional Release

*Includes determinate sentences only.

• Over the last five years, the total revocation with offence rates decreased for all federal conditional release supervision populations. During the same period, the rates for statutory release were on average seven times higher than the rates of federal day parole and more than twice the rates of federal full parole.

Figure 27. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates on Federal Conditional Release

*Includes determinate sentences only.

• Over the last five years, the revocation with violent offence rates were, on average, ten and a half times higher for offenders on statutory release than for offenders on federal day parole and three times higher than for offenders on federal full parole. The rates of revocation with a violent offence for statutory release have been declining in the last five years.
• 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. Fifteen percent (15%) of statutory release supervision periods revoked with a violent offence between 2012/13 and 2016/17 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, 5% were revoked in the first three months. The average length of day parole supervision periods in the last five years was under five months.

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

Figure 28. Successful Completion Rates on Provincial Parole

• Over the last five years, the successful completion rates for offenders on provincial day and full parole have been fluctuating. In 2016/17, the successful completion rate decreased two percentage points on provincial day parole (to 85%) and increased six percentage points on provincial full parole (to 92%).

Figure 29. Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates on Provincial Parole

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

Figure 30. Total Revocation with Offence Rates on Provincial Parole

• Over the last five years, the total revocation with offence rates for provincial day parole were relatively stable under 2%, while the rate for provincial full parole was above 2% in 2015/16, but decreased to zero in 2016/17.

Figure 31. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates on Provincial Parole

• 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 2016/17, the successful completion rate on federal day parole was 2.1 percentage points higher at 92.7% than in 2015/16.
• The successful completion rate on federal regular day parole for offenders serving determinate sentences for non-violent offences (schedule II and non-scheduled offences) was on average 9 percentage points lower when averaged over the last five years (between 2012/13 and 2016/17) than the rate for federal day parole APR (90% and 99% respectively).
• In 2016/17, offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences had the highest successful completion rate (98%) on federal day parole, while offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences and those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences had the lowest (90%).
• Over the last five years, Indigenous offenders were the least likely to successfully complete federal day parole (87%), while Asian offenders were the most likely (96%).
• Over the last five years, there was no difference in the successful completion rates on federal day parole between male and female offenders (90.4% each).
• In 2016/17, the successful completion rate on federal day parole increased in all regions (Atlantic to 85%, Quebec to 97%, Ontario to 97%, Prairies to 87% and Pacific to 93%).
• The rate of violent reoffending on federal day parole has been very low in the last five years, averaging 0.1%. Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences accounted for almost half of all revocations with a violent offence on federal day parole (11 out of 24).
• In the last five years, Asian and White offenders averaged a 0.2% revocation with a violent offence rate, compared to 0.1% for Indigenous and Black offenders. There were no revocations with a violent offence for offenders in the Other category. White offenders accounted for the majority of all revocations with a violent offence on federal day parole (19 out of 24).
• The revocation with violent offence rate on federal day parole in the last five years was slightly higher for male offenders than female offenders (0.2% and 0.1% respectively).
• By region, the rates of violent reoffending on federal day parole have been fluctuating in the last five years. All regions averaged a rate of 0.2% with the exception of the Prairie region, where the rate was slightly lower at 0.1%.

Provincial Day Parole  

• In 2016/17, the successful completion rate on provincial day parole decreased to 85% (from 87%) compared to the previous year. The rates decreased in the Atlantic (to 80%) and Pacific regions (to 83%) and remained the same in the Prairie region (at 95%).
• Over the last five years (between 2012/13 and 2016/17), offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences and those serving sentences for schedule II offences reported the highest successful completion rates on provincial day parole (94%), while offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences, the lowest (79%).
• The rates of violent reoffending on provincial day parole have been very low in the last five years: three offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences and two offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences had their day paroles revoked because of a violent offence in the last five years.

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

• In 2016/17, the successful completion rate on federal full parole for offenders serving determinate sentences increased 2.2 percentage points (to 88%) compared to 2015/16.
• Over the last five years (between 2012/13 and 2016/17), the successful completion rate on federal full parole was on average 3 percentage points higher for non-violent offenders released on federal full parole APR than those non-violent offenders released on regular full parole (89%; 86%).
• In 2016/17, the successful completion rate improved for all offence types. Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences reported the highest successful completion rate (96%) and offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, the lowest (87%).
• Over the last five years, Indigenous offenders reported the lowest successful completion rate on federal full parole (80%), while Asian offenders, the highest (91%).
• Over the last five years, female offenders reported a higher successful completion rate on federal full parole (90%) than male offenders (86%).
• In 2016/17, the successful completion rate increased in the Quebec (to 95%), Ontario (to 93%) and Prairie (to 89%) regions and decreased in the Atlantic (to 81%) and Pacific (to 85%) regions when compared to the previous year.
• The rates of violent reoffending on federal full parole have been decreasing in the last five years, averaging 0.5%. Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences accounted for almost half of all revocations with a violent offence on federal full parole in the last five years (12 out of 25).
• Over the last five years, Indigenous offenders reported the highest revocation with a violent offence rate on federal full parole (1.3%) compared to White offenders (0.5%). No Asian offenders and offenders in the Other category had their federal full paroles revoked because of a violent offence in the last five years. The rate for Black offenders was 0.4%.
• No female offenders serving determinate sentences on federal full parole had their supervision periods revoked because of a violent offence in the last five years.  
• By region, the rate of violent reoffending has been fluctuating in the last five years. The five-year average rate has been the highest in the Quebec region (0.7%) and the lowest in the Ontario region (0.3%).

Federal full parole: Indeterminate sentences

Reporting on outcomes of federal full parole supervision periods for offenders serving indeterminate sentences was reviewed in detail and now only includes supervision periods which started on or after April 1, 1994. This differs from previous reports, where all federal full parole supervision periods were tracked that ended between 1994/95 and the report’s year-end regardless of whether they started before or after April 1, 1994. The current approach is methodologically more rigorous.

• Between 1994/95 and 2016/17, 1,798 offenders serving indeterminate sentences had been released on full parole, completing a total of 2,261 federal full parole supervision periods. As of April 9, 2017, 55% of the supervision periods were still active (supervised), 5% of the supervision periods that were active were for offenders who had been deported or extradited, 13% had ended because the offender had died while on parole, 18% were revoked for a breach of condition, 6% were revoked as the result of a non-violent offence, and 3% were revoked as the result of a violent offence.
• The average length of federal full parole supervision periods for offenders serving indeterminate sentences was 7.7 years.
• Over the last 23 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 is on full parole.
• Over the last 23 years, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 1.5 times more likely to have died than to have had their supervision periods revoked for having committed a new offence.
• Over the same time period, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 4.9 times more likely to have died than to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a violent offence. The ratio increases for those offenders who were on full parole for over five years (6.9).

Figure 32. Revocation Rates on Federal Full Parole for Offenders Serving Indeterminate Sentences (between 1994/95 and 2016/17)

Figure 33. Comparison of Revocation Rates on Federal Full Parole (between 1994/95 and 2016/17)

• Compared to offenders serving determinate sentences on full parole, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 8% more likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a breach of condition, and 19% more likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a new violent offence for federal supervision periods completed between 1994/95 and 2016/17.
• However, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 53% less likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a new non-violent offence than offenders serving determinate sentences during the same time period.
• Over the last 23 years (between 1994/95 and 2016/17), 61 federal full parole supervision periods were revoked with a violent offence for offenders serving indeterminate sentences, compared to 778 federal full paroles revoked with a violent offence for offenders serving determinate sentences.

Provincial full parole

• Over the last five years, the successful completion rate on provincial full parole averaged 88%. The rate was 92% in 2016/17.
• The successful completion rate on provincial full parole increased in the Atlantic (to 92%), Prairie (to 90%) and Pacific (to 92%) regions in 2016/17 compared to the previous year.
• Very few provincial offenders have had their full paroles revoked because of a violent offence. Over the last five years, one offender serving a sentence for a schedule I-non-sex offence and one offender serving a sentence for a non-scheduled offence, both males, had their provincial full paroles revoked with a violent offence.

Outcome on Statutory Release

• In 2016/17, the successful completion rate on statutory release increased to 67% compared to 2015/16.
• In 2016/17, the successful completion rate on statutory release increased slightly for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (to 64%), and was the lowest rate. The rate also increased for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (to 75%), and offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (to 65%). The rate decreased slightly for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (to 78%), remaining the highest rate.
• Over the last five years (between 2012/13 and 2016/17), Indigenous offenders reported the lowest successful completion rate on statutory release (53%) and Asian offenders, the highest (78%).
• Female offenders were more likely to successfully complete their statutory releases in the last five years (68%) than male offenders (63%).
• In 2016/17, the successful completion rates increased in the Quebec (to 75%), Ontario (to 75%), Prairie (to 58%) and Pacific (to 69%) regions and decreased in the Atlantic region (to 61%).

Figure 34. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates on Statutory Release

• The revocation with violent offence rates on statutory release have been fluctuating in the last five years for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences under one percent, the lowest rates.
• Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences had the highest revocation with violent offence rates in each of the last five years. They accounted for 69% of all revocations with violent offence on statutory release in the last five years.
• Over the last five years, Indigenous offenders had the highest revocation with violent offence rate on statutory release (1.8%), and offenders in the Other category, the lowest (0.5%).
• Male offenders were more likely to be revoked with a violent offence on statutory release in the last five years (1.6%) than female offenders (0.5%).
• Over the last five years, the revocation with violent offence rates were above the national average of 1.6% in the Quebec (2.0%) and Pacific (2.0%) regions and below the national average in the Atlantic (1.3%) and Ontario (0.7%) regions. The rate in the Prairie region was the same as the national average.

Figure 35. Successful Completion Rates on Statutory Release With and Without a Prior Day or Full Parole on the Same Sentence

Over the last ten years (between 2007/08 and 2016/17), 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 13% higher than the rate for offenders who had no prior parole supervision period (71% v. 57%, rounded values).

This finding is applicable, although to a different extent, to all offence types, races and genders.

Two possible explanations for this are:

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 benefited from their time in the community (i.e. programs and support in the community) and are thus more likely to successfully complete statutory release.

The difference between offenders serving sentences on statutory release who had a prior day and/or full parole supervision period on the same sentence and those who did not is also significant for the revocation with violent offence rates. Over the last ten years (between 2007/08 and 2016/17), the rate of violent reoffending on statutory release for offenders who had a prior day and/or full parole supervision period prior to a statutory release supervision period on the same sentence was 1.6% compared to 2.5% for those offenders who did not have a prior day and/or full parole supervision period. While a 0.9 percentage point difference seems small, it is nevertheless meaningful: it stands for 906 more violent offences that were reported for offenders on statutory release who did not have a prior day and/or full parole supervision period compared to those offenders who did.

Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission

Tables 153-165

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 36. Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission Rates

• Ten to fifteen years after sentence completion (for sentences completed between 2001/02 and 2005/06), 27% of federal offenders had returned on a federal sentence as of March 31, 2017.
• Over the long-term (for sentences completed between 2001/02 and 2005/06), offenders released at warrant expiry were over four 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 2001/02 and 2005/06), offenders released at warrant expiry were more than thirteen 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 over one and a half times more likely than offenders who completed their sentences on statutory release.
• Over the long term (for sentences completed between 2001/02 and 2005/06), 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 2001/02 and 2005/06), 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 sex offenders were the least likely.
• Over the long term, of offenders who completed their sentences either on full parole, statutory release or were released at warrant expiry, Indigenous offenders were the most likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence.

Figure 37. Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission Rate by Offence Type (for sentences completed between 2001/02 and 2005/06) (%)

* Low numbers

• Over the long term, of offenders who completed their sentences either on full parole, statutory release or were released at warrant expiry, Indigenous 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 (36%) had the highest rates of readmission on a federal sentence, as did offenders who were released at warrant expiry in the Quebec region (46%). The lowest rates were reported in the Pacific region for offenders who completed their sentences on full parole (6%), in the Prairie region for offenders who completed their sentences on statutory release (31%) and in the Ontario region for offenders who were released at warrant expiry (29%).

Figure 38. Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission Rate by Region (for sentences completed between 2001/02 and 2005/06) (%)

Conditional Release Openness and Accountability

Tables 166-171

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.

On April 23, 2015, Bill C-32, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, created and strengthened a set of rights for victims (rights to protection, participation, restitution and access to information). In relation to conditional release, victims received a wider access to information about the offender who harmed them, a right to obtain a copy of the PBC release decision (previously a matter of PBC policy) and a right to require the Board, upon receipt of a victim statement, to impose any condition on an offender that is reasonable and necessary to protect the victim or provide reasons why they did not do so. In addition, a victim has now a right to listen to an audio recording of the hearing if a victim was unable to attend in person.  

On April 23, 2015, Bill C-479 (An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders) created a provision for the Board to allow a victim who cannot attend a hearing of the offender who harmed them with an opportunity to observe a hearing by any other reasonable means.

Increased public awareness and various campaigns in previous years promoting victim’s rights may have contributed to increases in the number of PBC contacts with 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 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 for Victims

• In 2016/17, PBC reported 32,786 contacts with victims, an increase of 10% from the previous year. The numbers increased in the Ontario and Prairie regions and decreased in the  Atlantic, Quebec and Pacific regions.
• On March 31, 2017, the number of victims who were registered to receive information from the PBC and CSC was 7,748, a decrease of 7% from 2015/16.

Figure 39. PBC Contacts with Victims

Note: Prior to a launch of the Victims Portal in June 2016, the Board performed data cleanup, which probably resulted in a decrease in the number of contacts with victims.

Observers at PBC Hearings

• In 2016/17, the number of observers at PBC hearings increased to 4,642 (+8%) compared to the previous year; the number of hearings with observers increased to 1,910 (+8%). The number of observers increased in the Atlantic and Ontario regions and decreased in the other regions.
• In the last five years (2012/13 to 2016/17), 20,645 observers have attended 8,432 PBC hearings.

Figure 40. Observers at PBC Hearings

Victims Speaking at PBC 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 victims to present a statement at parole hearings was entrenched in law.

Figure 41. Victims Presentations at PBC Hearings

• In 2016/17, victims made 244 presentations at 149 hearings. By comparison, victims made 244 presentations at 171 hearings the previous year.
• The majority of presentations were done in person (87%) followed by presentations via video conferencing (12%) and pre-recorded presentations (audiotape or videotape/DVD) (1%).
• The major offence of victimization for victims making presentations in 2016/17 was most likely to have been murder (42%), sexual assault (20%), manslaughter (5%) or impaired driving causing death (5%).  

Access to Decision Registry

• In 2016/17, the number of decisions sent from the decision registry decreased to 4,525 (-40%) compared to 2015/16. The decrease is in part due to the Ontario region not capturing full data for a few months. Smaller decreases were reported in other regions.
• In the last five years, 32,713 decisions have been sent from the decision registry.

Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations

Tables 172-180

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 and demonstrated they are law-abiding citizens for a prescribed number of years, to have their criminal records 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 amended the CRA, replacing the term “pardon” with the term “record suspension” and increasing 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.

Following the implementation of Bill C-10, the Record Suspension program continued processing pardon applications received before March 13, 2012, as well as processing record suspension applications received on and after that date. In 2016/17, all remaining pardon cases were processed.

• In 2016/17, the Board received 11,563 record suspension applications and accepted 8,191 (71%) applications. In the previous year, the Board received 12,384 record suspension applications and accepted 8,917 applications (or 72%).

As record suspensions are not fully comparable with pardons (the eligibility criteria for a record suspension are different than for a pardon), direct comparisons between the year-end reports would be inaccurate. It was reported that the number of record suspension applications received between 2012/13 and 2016/17 was much lower than the number of pardon applications received in the preceding years, in part due to the decrease in the number of citizens eligible to apply for record suspensions (effect of Bill C-10) and in part due to the increase in the processing fee.

Figure 42. Pardon and Record Suspension Applications

• In the last ten years of receiving pardon applications (between 2002/03 and 2011/12), the PBC had been receiving, on average, more than 25,000 pardon applications a year and accepting more than 20,000 for processing (or 78%).
• In 2016/17, the Board rendered 3,865 pardon decisions for applications received prior to March 13, 2012, granting a pardon in 97% cases and denying a pardon in 3% of cases, effectively clearing the backlog of pardon cases.
• In 2016/17, the Board made 8,779 record suspension decisions; 95% of record suspensions were ordered and 5% were refused.
• In 2016/17, the average processing time of a record suspension application accepted for processing was 150 days for summary offences and 330 days for indictable offences where the final decision was to order a record suspension, and 424 days for those cases where the final decision was to refuse to order a record suspension.
• In 2016/17, the number of pardons and record suspensions revoked and those that had ceased to exist decreased from the previous year to 1,277 ( 2%). It included 463 pardons and 38 record suspensions revoked by the PBC (39%); 737 pardons and 34 record suspensions that ceased to exist on RCMP authority (60%); and four pardons and one record suspension that ceased to exist on PBC authority (0.4%).

Figure 43. Pardon/Record Suspension Revocation/Cessation Rate

• Over the last 15 years, the cumulative pardon/record suspension revocation/cessation rate has remained relatively low. However, with the termination of the pardon program in 2011/12 as a result of the legislative changes, pardon revocations continued to be processed and this greatly inflated the total revocation/cessation rate. As a result, in 2016/17, the pardon/record suspension revocation/cessation rate increased again (0.13 percentage point) to 5.02%.
• Generally, the pardon/record suspension revocation/cessation rate has been relatively low, indicating that 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 myriad of reasons with employment being by far the most frequently used. Some of the other reasons include: perceived inequity, medical condition, immigration to Canada, compassion, financial hardship, etc.

• At the end of 2016, there were 118 active clemency cases. 
• In the last five years, 12 clemency requests have been granted, five have been denied and 116 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.

Internal Services

Tables 181-183

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 44. PBC Reference Levels

• In 2016/17, the total PBC expenditures amounted to $46.8 million, or a $0.5 million increase compared to 2015/16.
• 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 83% of the Board’s expenditures in 2016/17.
• The $1.3 million in expenditures for the 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 2016/17, PBC received revenue of $5,177,986 for 8,206 record suspension applications. The PBC portion was $3,856,820.

Human Resources Management

• As of March 15, 2017, the Board staff consisted of 434 employees, 81% females and 19% males. The highest proportion of female staff was in the Atlantic region (11:1) and the lowest proportion was at the National Office (3:1).
• For 61% of PBC employees, the first official language was English and for 39% of employees, it was French. Forty-nine percent (49%) of staff were bilingual.
• As of March 15, 2017, 5% of the Board’s staff was Indigenous and 13% was visible minorities. Employees with disabilities accounted for 6% of the Board’s staff.
• As of April 3, 2017, the Board had a total of 65 Board members (37 full-time and 28 part-time).
• Women represented 34% of all Board members.
• The first official language of 71% of Board members was English, while French was the first official language of 29% of Board members. Twenty-six percent (26%) of Board members were bilingual.