Justice Committee on June 3rd, 2026

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you. I hope we are able to do something positive today here and going forward as well.

For my next question, I'll ask Mr. Roebuck, and maybe you will want to chime in as well, Jo-Anne.

Dr. Roebuck, victims and families understandably want Parliament to act, and I hope we're able to do that with this legislation. At the same time, Parliament has a responsibility—which you touched on in your testimony—to have legislation that is legally sound and able to withstand any court challenges. You talked about having dignity, safety and care.

From your perspective, how important is it that we get both of these things right when we pass this legislation?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I have great respect for the need to balance, but I sometimes have a reaction to that word, because when we talk about balancing, we're often not actually fully unpacking the experience of survivors.

What we hear is very similar to what Jo-Anne has shared: that once the eligibility date starts, it's normal that hearings are postponed. We had a complaint from a family that also meets the criteria of this bill: They had seven parole hearing postponements in two years.

For the whole time, they're experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms and they're preparing ritual ceremony in their community, and then it's moved and moved. The impact is unfathomable.

If we talk about balancing, the families are saying, “Can you consider this? What does it look like to balance our interests in this conversation?”

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much.

I know that I have about 30 seconds left.

To follow up on that—because I want to make sure we get it right—if Parliament can preserve the objective of this bill, Bill C-235, while also improving its legal durability, transparency and ability to withstand any challenge, would that generally be in the best interests of the victims and their families?

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

I feel that it would, definitely. It would give some families a sense of their new normalcy. I can't say that everything's going to be fine. It's always going to be in the back of your mind, obviously, and mentally and physically impactful on you, but I believe that it would help families heal somewhat from their tragedies, mentally and health-wise as well. It's physical and mental.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Begum.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I think sentencing is often the focus of measures to support crime victims, but the actual process, from start to finish, is within Parliament's purview, and there's a lot more work to do to have a process that's safer and preserves fairness for both sides.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Roebuck and Ms. Landolt, thank you for being with us.

I don't even have any questions for you, Ms. Landolt. Words cannot express how I feel about what happened to your niece. I'm not the only one. Everyone must tell you how awful, senseless and unacceptable it is. No parent should ever have to go through that.

That said, obviously we can't turn back the clock and prevent what happened to your niece. All we can do is try to make the justice system effective, and ensure that it prevents as many ordeals like yours as possible, that it deals with cases like these fairly—that may not be the right word—and effectively, and that it always punishes those who have committed such crimes.

This may be a little naive, but above all, my hope is that they can be rehabilitated, especially young people. I remain hopeful that these individuals have enough humanity to be rehabilitated. I don't work in rehabilitation; I'm not an expert on rehabilitation, but I think there are people who can make that happen. I don't know whether Kimberly's killers were able to be rehabilitated, but listening to you, I get the sense that they weren't.

This bill would extend the period of parole ineligibility to between 25 and 40 years. To be honest, when I think about that, I'm not so sure the situation will be any different after 40 years versus 25. I think we need to focus more on rehabilitation. If someone isn't rehabilitated after 25 years, it's hard for me to believe that they will be after 15 more years. Nevertheless, we do what we can with what we have.

I'll leave it there, Ms. Landolt. You can have the floor if there's anything you'd like to add to your remarks. Perhaps you could tell us your views on rehabilitation. With all the suffering you and your family have endured because of Kimberly's death, do you still believe criminals can be rehabilitated? Maybe not, and you're perfectly entitled to say, no, you don't think so. I would like to hear your thoughts on it, though.

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

The answer is no, definitely not.

I don't even call them “people”, because they're not people. They're monsters. They're evil. They're not treatable. The court documents prove that. I believe, if it was 25 years of intense therapy, possibly. We also heard about castration. We heard multiple things. I can't even think of it all off the top of my head, but the amount of therapy that could possibly treat these two is not comprehensible. It's not able to be done. We have seen it. It's been 16 years. We just had a hearing late last year, and there was no accountability. They're both pointing fingers at each other, but they were both masterminds in this. There was no one leader. They both planned this. It was a perfect storm. That's what the police officers told my brother and sister-in-law. They met in school at a very young age and manifested into what they became. They said that if that girl had come over after Kimmy's death, she would have been murdered. They were serial killers in the making. These people cannot be treated.

There are certain offenders who are not treatable. These two are a perfect example of that. There are obviously more, like Clifford Olson. I grew up when Clifford Olson was doing his murders. I remember being scared to go out of my house because of it. There's also Paul Bernardo. There are multiple different murderers out there who are not treatable. It's just in their makeup. We need to put these people behind bars. That's where they belong, for the safety of our communities. I do not want our offenders let out. I'm telling you that if they are ever let out, you'd better be watching them, because they will reoffend. I guarantee it.

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

I'd like to use whatever time I have left to ask you the same question, Mr. Roebuck. If you have anything to add about rehabilitation, please go ahead.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

I think this bill is quite narrow in scope regarding the restrictions it aims to introduce. Within corrections, there are many different risk assessment tools and evaluations that are used that could suggest whether a parole hearing is even merited. If you have people who you know are not accepting responsibility, who intend to cause harm, it's difficult to see a path forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

We'll now go to the five-minute round. We're going to have time for one person from each party, starting with Mr. Lawton for five minutes.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses, in particular Ms. Landolt, and I mean no offence to the other witnesses.

It's incredible, the courage and clarity you've provided on something that is very personal to you and your family but, as we've heard in testimony from Mr. Kibble, also applies to other families. Not all of them have an advocate like you, so I think I speak on behalf of this committee for how grateful we are, and how in awe we are of what you have done here.

In the 15 years since you lost your niece, could you reiterate how many times you have had to appear before a parole board?

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

I was hoping this wasn't coming up, but both of our offenders have gone before a parole board. Cameron, I believe, has been at a parole hearing only once. Kruse has been two or three times, I believe. There are paper hearings. With the parole hearings, there are also ETAs for personal development. With Cameron, I believe, it was only once.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

At the risk of putting words in your mouth, is that too many to count?

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

Yeah.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

There have been too many for you to remember how often you've had to relitigate and relive this.

You said very eloquently, in your testimony earlier, that every time it takes a little piece of you to do it—basically, the amount of effort that it takes digging into that part of your life.

When you've gone through this, has there ever been a thought in your mind that the parole application will be successful? Has that ever even been a question?

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

No.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

It is really serving no purpose. The offenders know this. We've heard from other witnesses, and I've seen research on this. We had one witness at our last meeting talk about how offenders literally “get off”. Those were the words on this.

Is that something you felt as well, that they almost enjoy that process and the effect they're having on people like you and your family?

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

For sure.

With my statements, I have obviously provided some personal information, but there is information I have not provided, because I don't want them to feel gratification. They do feel gratification. If they are hurting somebody, that's what they want to do. I don't want them to know how much that has hurt our family. I've obviously said it in a nutshell, but I haven't dived into the details regarding the hard feelings.

They also receive our statements, so they can read them at any time, and that bothers me. It takes you aback that they can actually go through and read this stuff. They even try to control the hearings, and they also attempt to control the Parole Board.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Have you felt, in the course of the last 15 years, I guess, that victims are not front and centre in the system? Is the system itself not concerned predominantly with the effects on victims and their families?

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

No. I've been told that the prime outcome is to release offenders. They want to treat them and have them go out into society. That's what it is. It's not about us.

The Parole Board does acknowledge us. It understands the trauma and respects that we are present. It has said that. It understands that it's very difficult to be there, to read or submit statements, but ultimately, the goal is to release offenders.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

When you say, “they”, you're referring to the system. You're referring to the government, basically.

[Jo-Anne Landolt]

Yes. The system is broken.

As I said before, I don't want to see these two released. It's not in the best interest of any woman, any female, in Canada if these offenders are released. It's taking lots of taxpayers' money for these hearings. It's not warranted. I've said that. Why are we doing this? It's ridiculous that there's a date—a scheduled hearing. They have paper hearings. There are dates set when they are sentenced. It's regardless of how well they're doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

Ms. Lattanzio, you have five minutes.