News

Ottawa is moving to close the door on early parole for white-collar criminals and other non-violent offenders, a step that would cost taxpayers $60-million a year in added incarceration costs.

The Harper government tabled a bill yesterday that bolsters its law-and-order agenda, introducing legislation to make it harder for all convicts to get early release from jail.

No longer would any inmate, even those sentenced for non-violent crimes such as white-collar offences, be eligible for parole after one-sixth of the sentence.

And the presumption that federal inmates could get so-called "automatic" parole after serving a third of their sentences will also be eliminated; some can still win release after doing one-third of their time, but only if the parole board agrees.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan acknowledged the longer prison sentences would cost $60-million annually.

But he said early parole for non-violent offenders was introduced in 1992 as a cost-saving measure. The latest move suggests the Tory government is ready to treat the added cost of its get-tough initiatives as worth the price.

"This would build on the government's measures to ensure the punishment fits the crime," Mr. Van Loan said at an announcement in Montreal.

(In fact, when the government introduced changes to allow early parole for non-violent crimes in 1992, the move was done partly in response to cost-cutting orders from the federal Treasury Board, according to news reports. But corrections officials also said it made moral sense to move non-violent offenders who pose no safety threat into the community.)

Mindful of the recent spate of alleged financial fraud schemes in which hundreds of Canadian investors were swindled, Mr. Van Loan said the government wants to end the practice of automatic early release.

"As Canadians have been made painfully aware over the last few months, not all criminals carry guns," Mr. Van Loan said.

He said the government wants inmates to prove to the National Parole Board that they have "earned" their parole by showing a commitment to rehabilitation.

The bill is expected to sail through the Commons with the support of the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals are expected to back, it, too, but the sweeping nature of the changes might give them second thoughts. Liberal justice critic Dominic Leblanc said the projected annual $60-million price tag is too low, and wouldn't even cover the cost of fixing the heating system at the prison in his riding.

Mr. Leblanc said the federal prison system is already overcrowded, and the Conservative government has yet to outline a strategy to deal with the massive influx of inmates caused by bills to create longer sentences and tighter parole conditions.

Mr. Leblanc said the party supports eliminating early parole for serious frauds and drug crimes, but thinks it "may not be wise" to remove early parole for people convicted of less serious crimes for the first time.

Some criminologists say it's sensible to keep inmates convicted of major fraud in jail longer to express social disapproval. But for perpetrators of most economic crimes, as well as for non-violent drug crimes, there is no evidence that delaying parole would do anything to reduce crime or keep society safer, the critics say.

"This is just costly stupidity," said Neil Boyd, a criminologist at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. "The irony is that this is a fiscally conservative government, yet it's spending money without providing evidence that it's of value to Canadian taxpayers.

"If we've got non-violent offenders, why do we want to keep them in jail longer? Who are we protecting?" Prof. Boyd asked. "It has no practical benefits."

But victims of alleged fraud say they're pleased the government is getting tough on white-collar criminals.

"It's going to have a guy serve more of his time in jail, and also be a deterrent," said Joey Davis, an organizer on a committee of former clients of Earl Jones, the Montreal financial adviser accused in a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme.