An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence)

How it changed on the way

95% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (892 words introduced, 804 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept the core goal of shifting most escorted temporary absence decisions for serious offenders from the institutional head to the Parole Board but rewrote the mechanism by creating a new section 17.1 instead of amending section 17. The final version added a structured-plan requirement, changed rules for subsequent absences, and adjusted time limits and cancellation procedures.

• Authority for murderers moved from amended subsections of section 17 to a new standalone section 17.1.

  Before: “(1.1) The Parole Board of Canada may, subject to section 746.1 of the Criminal Code, subsection 140.3(2) of the National Defence Act and subsection 15(2) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, authorize the escorted temporary absence of an inmate convicted of first or second degree murder if, in the opinion of the Board, the criteria set out in paragraphs (1)(a) to (d) are met.”

  After: “17.1 (1) The Parole Board of Canada may authorize the temporary absence of an inmate who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for life imposed as a minimum punishment and is eligible for day parole if the inmate is escorted by a staff member or other person authorized by the institutional head and the Parole Board of Canada is of the opinion that”

• New requirement added that a structured plan must exist before the Parole Board can authorize an absence.

  After: “and (d) a structured plan for the absence has been prepared.”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill relies heavily on subjective judgments by officials about risk, desirability, and necessity rather than fixed rules. Time limits and some procedural steps are clear, but the core decisions rest on opinions and broad standards.

Open to argument

• “in the opinion of the institutional head”

  This subjective test lets one official decide risk and conditions with no objective criteria.

• “present an undue risk to society”

  Undefined term invites argument over what counts as undue and how risk is measured.

• “any condition that it considers reasonable and necessary”

  Open-ended discretion allows officials to invent restrictions without statutory limits.

• “it is desirable for the inmate to be absent”

  Vague desirability standard gives no measurable test for when absences may be granted.

Clear-cut

• “a period of not more than 15 days”

  Fixed maximum duration removes discretion on length for non-medical absences.

• “serving a sentence of imprisonment for life imposed as a minimum punishment”

  Specific class of inmates is carved out with clear eligibility trigger.

Discretion. Almost all decisions on whether an absence is authorized, what conditions apply, and when it is cancelled are left to the institutional head or Parole Board of Canada with no further regulatory constraints shown in the text.

Challenging the law itself. Broad subjective phrases such as undue risk and reasonable and necessary are open to vagueness and overbreadth challenges under section 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. Because authorization turns on an official's opinion rather than observable facts, an inmate would struggle to prove that a refusal or condition breached the statutory criteria.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.