SCRA Committee Report

The Correctional Service of Canada is responsible for the administration of the sentences of those serving terms of imprisonment in excess of two years. Through a variety of programs and services, it prepares inmates for their eventual return into the community. Once an inmate has been returned to the community under some form of conditional release, the Correctional Service of Canada is responsible for the supervision of that offender.

The National Parole Board is an independent administrative tribunal with exclusive authority to grant, deny, terminate or revoke the conditional release of federal inmates from federal institutions, and provincial and territorial inmates from provincial and territorial institutions in jurisdictions without their own parole boards. It also has authority to order inmates detained from their statutory release date to the end of sentence. It also deals with pardon applications under the Criminal Records Act.

The Correctional Investigator acts as an ombudsman for inmates serving sentences in federal institutions. Independent of the Correctional Service of Canada, he may investigate complaints on his own initiative, on request from the Solicitor General of Canada, or on receipt of a complaint from or on behalf of an inmate. To ensure independence, he reports to the Solicitor General, who receives his annual reports and tables them in both Houses of Parliament.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act also defines and provides processes in relation to the following forms of conditional release : work release, temporary absence, day parole, parole, and statutory release.

The Act requires that its provisions and operation be comprehensively reviewed by a committee of Parliament. This Subcommittee is the committee designated for that purpose. As part of the process leading to this parliamentary review, the Solicitor General, in March 1998, released a Consultation Paper and a number of supporting technical papers. In October 1998, he released a report on the consultation he and his officials conducted between March and June.

In carrying out its review, the Subcommittee will refer to and make use of the work already done by the Solicitor General of Canada. It does not, however, necessarily consider itself to be bound or limited by the issues raised or addressed in the Solicitor General's Consultation Paper or the process following from it.

To assist those making submissions to it, the Subcommittee has identified the following general issues it expects to address during its process. This enumeration is not intended to be exhaustive or limiting - there are undoubtedly other matters that the Sub-committee should hear submissions about - those presenting briefs and appearing before the Sub-committee are invited to identify and address them.

• How effectively does the Correctional Service of Canada administer sentences and prepare inmates for their eventual return into the community? How well does this process assure both community safety and offender reintegration? How well does the Correctional Service of Canada provide accurate, timely information to the National Parole Board so that it may make fully informed conditional release decisions? How effectively does the Correctional Service of Canada supervise conditionally released offenders living in the community?
• Does the National Parole Board make appropriate conditional release decisions which take into account both community safety and effective offender reintegration? Do Board members have the accurate, complete, timely information required to make such conditional release decisions? Do Board members have access to the necessary expertise to make effective conditional release decisions?
• How effectively do the various conditional release decision makers deal with the granting, denial, termination or revocation of work release, temporary absence, day parole, parole, and statutory release? How effective are the provisions allowing for the possible detention of an inmate beyond statutory release date to the end of sentence?
• How effectively are the functions of the Correctional Investigator carried out? Should they be extended beyond their present scope to include such matters as the investigation of correctional or conditional release lapses with serious consequences? Should a similar office be established to assist victims with concerns about the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board?

DECEMBER 1998