Traduction de «npb post release decision sheet » (Anglais → Français) :

103. Acknowledges that a minimum of 60 posts are expected to be transferred to the Parliament and that this transfer will be implemented in two phases, the first phase from 1 October 2014 and the second phase later in 2015; includes in the budget the adjustments related to the transfer of 42 posts (30 posts from the EESC and 12 from the CoR) corresponding to the implementation of the 1st phase, and places the half of appropriations corresponding to the transfer of the expected additional posts (a minimum 6 from the EESC and a minimum of 12 from the CoR) in the reserve, to be released ...[+++] once the final decision on the remaining transfer is taken; expects that the final transfer will be completed by July 2015;

Question No. 437 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon: (a) who did what and when prior to the Selection Panel being convened; (b) who determined the process to be followed with respect to the most recent appointment process to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC); (c) was the process for Justice Wagner designed with the departure of Justice Fish a year later in mind; (d) was the process for Justice Nadon designed with the forthcoming departure of Justice LeBel in mind; (e) in the breakdown of appointment process costs provided in the answer to Q-239, what accounts for the “Acquisition ...[+++] of Machinery and Equipment” cost associated with the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon; (f) was there a competitive bidding process with respect to the goods and services in (a); (g) what accounts for the greater cost of “Legal Services” for the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon relative to the reported costs provided in the answer to Q-239 for other Justices; (h) are the costs for the legal opinions of Justices Binnie and Charron included in the “Legal Services” heading for the appointment process of Justice Marc Nadon reported in the answer to Q-239; (i) if the answer to (f) is no, under what heading are these opinion costs found and, if not reported in the answer to Q-239, where are they reported; (j) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of Justice Marc Nadon and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (k) were the legal opinions of any Quebec jurists explicitly sought with respect to the eligibility of a federal judge to assume a Quebec seat on the SCC and, if so, (i) whose opinions were sought, (ii) on what date, (iii) at what cost; (l) how long will the materials relative to Justice Nadon's appointment remain on the website for the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada; (m) when were these material ...

When the substance of Bill C-46 was introduced as Bill C-19 during the 3rd session of the 37th Parliament, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness stated that the government was “signalling its commitment to the protection of public safety” (119) She noted that the bill expanded the offences in respect of which an inmate is ineligible for accelerated parole review; removed the presumption of accelerated parole, instead requiring a deliberate decision of the NPB in all cases; delayed accelerated parole review for offenders serving sentences of more than six years; and ensured that the CSC reviews all ...[+++]statutory release cases to determine whether they should be referred to the NPB for possible continued detention of the offender or special release conditions.a(120)

This press release goes along with an information sheet in which we are informed of the five key points on which the minister has based his decision.

It is important to note that this change is specific to post-release decisions.

As regards supervision and assistance measures in the context of suspended sentences accompanied by probation orders or conditional release, the Programme of Measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters mentioned above sets the following objective and measure in Chapter 4 (Post-sentencing follow-up decisions):