Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

R.E. Bob Brown: Professionals should decide on sentencing

For the past several years, I have been guilty of routinely monitoring the federal government’s criminal-justice legislative agenda.

For the past several years, I have been guilty of routinely monitoring the federal government’s criminal-justice legislative agenda. From this, it is easy to conclude that the Conservatives’ fear-based agenda has enhanced their well-deserved reputation of being truly “dumb on crime” and also extremely poor keepers of the public purse.

Recently released information indicates the government expended $1 million in court challenges to maintain its ill-conceived legislation related to firearms and parole. This conclusion is reinforced by the auditor general’s report that highlights the poor performance of federal corrections in Canada and what it is costing in community safety and taxpayer’s dollars.

A common thread in approved and pending legislation highlights the Conservatives’ lack of trust in criminal-justice professionals, as evidenced by their elimination or significant reduction of professional discretion.

Let’s set a political context.

In the 2011 election, the Conservatives won 39.62 per cent of the vote, leaving more than 60 per cent of the voting public not supportive of their platform or a way forward that has also lacked support from our judicial sector. The government has lost 15 court cases related to its legislative agenda and challenges, costing the taxpayer $4.7 million.

The Conservatives’ 2008 Tackling Violent Crime Act significantly reduced the discretion of sentencing judges in relation to certain firearm offences. On April 14, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum provision and upheld a 2013 Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that labelled the law cruel and unusual.

A report released in April by Penal Reform International recommended that life sentences should be eligible for parole review after a period of no more than 25 years. While the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights have taken issue in different ways with sentences lasting the duration of an individual’s life, the prime minister, contrary to the international criminal-justice community’s perspective, announced a bill that would legislate that a life sentence “will mean exactly that: a sentence for life.”

This proposed legislation highlights that for certain life sentences, the offender will not be eligible for parole, customarily an administrative decision made by Parole Board Canada. The offender would, however, be eligible to make an application to the minister for executive release after having served 35 years of a sentence. The parole board’s discretion would be shifted to the cabinet.

Although the executive-release provision provides a glimmer of hope, remember the prime minister’s statement: “A life sentence will mean exactly that: a sentence for life.” He is the CEO of the cabinet.

University of Toronto professor Anthony Doob crunched the numbers. If the current 1,749 “lifers” on parole and under supervision in Canada had remained incarcerated, it would have meant a net additional cost of $145 million a year.

Correctional Service Canada numbers indicate that between January 1975 and March 1990, 658 murder offenders were released on full parole. Five of the 658 were reconvicted of murder.

Also of significance, police-reported homicides hit a historic low in 2013 as the murder rate fell by eight per cent to its lowest level since 1966.

A further challenge to the parole board’s discretion, and potentially another administratively convoluted process, is apparent upon review of Conservative-sponsored Bill C-616. This legislation would make the breach of a release condition by an offender “without reasonable excuse” either a summary or an indictable offence. With an alleged breach of a condition, the parole officer would be mandated to inform the parole board, the police of jurisdiction and the respective attorney general.

The discretion of the paroling authority and the parole service would be reduced and shifted to Crown counsel and a judge — from an administrative authority to an “overburdened” judicial authority, along with increased costs to the province.

Over the past 35 years, I have had the privilege of working with countless professionals who routinely used their discretion with a common goal of enhancing community safety in an extremely difficult criminal-justice arena. The numerous challenges to their discretion and professionalism by the current Conservative criminal-justice agenda based is a disappointment bordering on resentment.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper should allow the sentencing judges, the parole board members and the parole officers to continue to use their discretion as trained professionals to keep our communities safe.

R.E. Bob Brown of Oak Bay is a former parole district director for Vancouver Island, former director of the corrections program at the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, and is currently under contract to the United Nations assisting the minister of justice of Somaliland with the introduction of a parole system.