Justice Committee on June 3rd, 2026

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and particularly you, Mrs. Landolt. I know sharing this publicly yet again is not easy. In your opening statement, you said that something positive ought to come out of this. Know that your presence here today, helping us do this work, is positive in itself. Thank you again for that, and thank you to your family.

The justice system comes out only with a decision. In your opinion, if a decision is motivated or if reasons are provided, does it give you any more confidence in the system, rather than just having a decision saying whether parole is awarded or not? Is the reasoning behind a decision important for you?

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

I never want them to be paroled either way.

In terms of reasoning, you hear how they are in parole hearings. Things come up all the time as to how they are now and what was happening when they were younger. We get information at parole hearings. I believe the Parole Board knows they're not at a point where they could be released. I don't really even think they're....

Do I feel there should be a reason? Ultimately, I don't feel they should be released, so any reason is....

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

If a decision were motivated, do you feel it would reinforce confidence in the justice system, because we would understand the reasons?

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

Yes, I understand that. If they have reasons, they obviously know what's going on and what these offenders are really about.

At the last hearing we went to, they said, “You know, you're not fooling anybody. You say one thing, but then you turn around, answer a question and contradict yourself.” They can see through the offenders, which is nice to know, because offenders will sometimes put a mask on when they're in front of a parole board, saying what they want to hear. “Sometimes people mess up.” That's what our offenders say. They messed up. They say, on paper, that they're ready to get out, but their actions and words aren't saying that.

Okay. I hope I answered that satisfactorily, in terms of what you're planning to....

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

My next question is for you, Dr. Roebuck.

We've heard during this study that supporting victims and ensuring that there are strong legal safeguards are, somehow, competing objectives.

What is your opinion on that?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I'd like to say that I believe firmly in rehabilitation but that there are signs of progress when that is happening.

We have to give more space to considering the needs of victims and survivors in these processes, but we also need to have fairness in the procedure. Fairness has to be applied all around.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Speaking of fairness, is it fair to say that legislation designed to support victims is ultimately strongest when it is both responsive to victim concerns and structured in a way that reduces the risk of future legal uncertainty?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Yes, and that's why I'm inviting the committee to see this as part of the conversation and then to consider all the different ways that survivors are affected by the parole process, like postponements.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Based on your experience in advocating for victims, would you encourage parliamentarians to adopt reasonable amendments that strengthen the legal framework of the bill, even those amendments that do not change the core objective of this bill?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Yes. The bill has to be safe from constitutional scrutiny, and that's what's in the best interest of victims. If there are procedural amendments to pass it in a more effective way, then that's in the interest of victims.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Mr. Fortin, you have two and a half minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Roebuck, I'd like to give you a chance to talk a bit more about rehabilitation. Please go ahead.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

In our work, it's clear that there's overlap between serious victimization and serious offending. We have to believe that survivors have ways to recover. I think that's different from the matters of this case, and I think that this conversation is fairly narrow in scope to a broader conversation on rehabilitation.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Ms. Landolt told us that rehabilitation isn't possible for Kimberly Proctor's killers. When I look at what happened, I tend to agree with her. Although I do believe in rehabilitation, I do think there may be people who can't be rehabilitated.

Would you agree that rehabilitation isn't always possible? If so, what do we do with those people?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

My answer would be that if there are no signs of rehabilitation, if there are no signs of progress, if there's high risk and if there are clear indications that they're not going to be changing their behaviour, we have to consider the impact on victims.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

The impact...?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

The impact on the victims of such—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I understand. We agree on that, but I don't think we can give the victim's family any real comfort. What they've gone through is unimaginable.

What do we, as a society, do with people who commit such heinous crimes, especially in their youth? Do we throw in the towel? We used to have the death penalty. That took care of the problem. The death penalty doesn't exist anymore. I'm against the death penalty, so I'm not complaining. Nevertheless, what do we do? These people continue to live, so do we keep them behind bars their entire lives, or do we throw in the towel? Is there anything that can be done for those people? I don't know. I'm not an expert. I'm a lawyer, but rehabilitation, sociology and all that isn't my specialty.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I don't think I can give a satisfactory answer in the time we have.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I want to thank all the witnesses for taking the time to be here, particularly you, Ma'am, for sharing this very difficult personal story.

Committee, we're going to suspend for just a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Welcome to the second hour of the meeting. We'll proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

With us to answer technical questions, we have, from the Department of Justice, a couple of familiar faces: Joanna Wells, senior counsel and team lead, criminal law policy section; and Erin Kelly, legal counsel. Thank you for joining us again.

We will jump right in. I will start with clause 1.

I apologize. The amendments up to G-4 are dependent on the approval of G-4. Based on my discussions earlier, I believe we have unanimous consent to start with G-4 and then go back to the beginning. Is that correct?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

(On clause 4)

This is part of clause 4. Shall G-4, moved by Ms. Lattanzio, carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 allowed to stand)

Members, we're now voting on clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

G-1, moved by Ms. Lattanzio, proposes new clause 1.1. Shall G-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

G-2, moved by Ms. Lattanzio, proposes new clause 1.2.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 2)

Clause 2 brings us to G-3, moved by Ms. Lattanzio. Shall G-3 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

We are now on G-5, moved by Ms. Lattanzio. Shall G-5 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

G-6, moved by Ms. Lattanzio, proposes a new clause 5.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That takes us to G-7 and proposed new clause 6, moved by Ms. Lattanzio.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.