WARNING: This story contains details about violence against Indigenous women.
The brutal acts of a Winnipeg serial killer that left even the judge who handed him a life sentence calling that punishment inadequate have illuminated a debate over how long people convicted of multiple murders should wait before getting a chance to apply for parole.
Jeremy Skibicki, 37, was officially sentenced Wednesday after being convicted in July of first-degree murder in the deaths of four Indigenous women in 2022. While each charge carries a mandatory life sentence without a chance of parole for 25 years, a 2022 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada ruled those sentences must be served concurrently, not one after another.
That means Skibicki is in effect serving the same sentence he’d have gotten if he’d only been convicted of murdering one woman — which doesn’t sit well with some.
“You may say that he has four sentences, but what does that really mean? It really means nothing, because he’s serving them all at the same time,” said Karen Wiebe, the executive director of the non-profit Manitoba Organization for Victim Assistance. Her 20-year-old son, TJ Wiebe, was murdered in 2003.
That sentiment echoed ones shared outside the courthouse following Skibicki’s sentencing, when family of one of the victims and Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Grand Chief Cathy Merrick said they would prefer to see his sentences served consecutively.
If that was an option, it would mean the four 25-year parole ineligibility periods could be stacked, and Skibicki could remain in jail with no chance of parole for as long as 100 years.
“I think that we just might have to change the legal system when it comes to consecutive sentencing, because he’s got to be accountable for the four deaths that he committed,” Merrick said, adding she’s still confident that even though he’ll be allowed to apply for parole after his 25-year period is up, Skibicki will “stay in that cell for the rest of his life.”
In sentencing the murderer, Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal said while he agreed with the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling, he thinks it was “purposely silent” on whether the law could eventually be changed for future cases like this one — leaving the door open for “an even more serious sanction … for cases involving, for example, a serial killer.”
But one legal expert says even though Skibicki will be allowed to apply for parole, the chance of him getting it is “virtually nonexistent,” given the “horrific details” of his crimes, and their impact on victims’ families and public safety, all of which the parole board will consider if he does apply.
But even for the worst offenders, for whom parole prospects are slim, “it’s important for inmates to have some incentive to abide by prison rules and to have some hope for their future. Our [justice] system really depends on that,” said Lisa Kerr, an associate law professor at Queen’s University.
“It may be sort of an emotionally appealing thing to say ‘we should not even have a hearing 25 years down the road,’ but it would be a very dysfunctional change in terms of how the prison system operates.”
Should the notwithstanding clause be used?
Kerr said the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to get rid of consecutive life sentences — introduced in 2011 legislation under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government — wasn’t about whether any particular offender deserves such an extreme punishment, but whether Canada should have to abide by any limits in the penalties it’s allowed to give.
The old law was “a very blunt tool,” she said, and deciding to bring it back now would be “betraying our values” as a country committed to constitutional rights, human dignity and rehabilitation.
“It’s important to remember this is a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. There was no debate … because they understood the stakes here,” Kerr said.
“They also understood that this does not mean that we can’t impose very severe punishment [for serious offenders] … and keep them separate from us for the rest of his natural life.”
But another legal expert says the high court’s decision means “the ball is in Parliament’s court now” to decide whether changes to the law are needed — and he thinks there’s a “fairly realistic chance” that could include using the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision found that stacking consecutive blocks of parole ineligibility violated the Charter’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”
But the notwithstanding clause allows governments to temporarily override other Charter sections. Using it in this instance would be sensible, said Brandon Trask, an assistant law professor at the University of Manitoba, since it would be “targeted just at the most heinous offences committed by individuals who not only killed — absolutely horrific on its own — but killed repeatedly.”
Trask said he respects the Supreme Court’s decision, but “respectfully disagree[s]” with its reasons — particularly their focus on the dignity of an offender.
“I view that as quite ironic in a case such as this,” he told CBC’s Information Radio host Marcy Markusa. “The focus on human dignity here does seem, in my personal view, somewhat misplaced.”
However, Trask said he’d be “quite reluctant” to see the clause used repeatedly in the justice system — and even if it was tapped to change the law now, it wouldn’t have the power to alter Skibicki’s sentence.
Debate over whether to use the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court’s decision — something Kerr said would be a “really extreme measure” — swirled long before Skibicki’s sentencing, including a pledge from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to use it to reinstate the Harper-era law.
Manitoba Progressive Conservative MLA Kelvin Goertzen also made a similar statement on social media following Skibicki’s sentencing.
Premier Wab Kinew said Skibicki “should never be free again,” but added that any future parole hearings should take into account the impact of his killings.
Changes could delay ‘horrifying’ parole process
Trask also said having a longer parole ineligibility period for cases like Skibicki’s would mean delaying or even preventing the difficult experience of participating in parole board hearings for victims’ families.
Victim advocate Wiebe said that process is important but “horrifying,” forcing victims and families to relive the trauma of what happened to them — and to be once again in the same room as the offender, if they choose to appear at the hearing.
A spokesperson for federal Justice Minister Arif Virani said at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision on consecutive sentencing, the then attorney general “strongly defended and supported a sentencing judge’s ability to impose a longer period of parole ineligibility.”
“As you know, the court rejected that position in its 9-0 decision,” Anna Lisa Lowenstein said in an email. “We respect the court’s independence and its unanimous decision.”
Skibicki was convicted of killing Morgan Harris, Marcedes Myran, Rebecca Contois, and a still unidentified woman given the name Mashkode Bizhiki’ikwe, or Buffalo Woman, by community leaders. All four women were killed in Winnipeg between mid-March and May 2022, when Skibicki was arrested.
Harris, 39, and Myran, 26, were both members of Long Plain First Nation. Contois, 24, was from O-Chi-Chak-Ko-Sipi First Nation, also known as Crane River. The woman known as Mashkode Bizhiki’ikwe was believed to be in her 20s, and court determined based on the evidence she was also Indigenous.
Skibicki confessed to the murders while he was being interrogated by Winnipeg police in 2022, telling them the killings were racially motivated.
During the weeks-long trial, which was heard before a judge alone, Skibicki’s lawyers argued he was not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder. Joyal disagreed, saying comments Skibicki made during his confession showed the murders were deliberate and planned.
Contois’s partial remains were found in garbage bins near Skibicki’s apartment and at the Brady Road landfill in south Winnipeg.
A search for Harris’s and Myran’s remains — believed to be at the Prairie Green landfill just outside the city — is expected to start in the fall. The location of Mashkode Bizhiki’ikwe’s remains is unknown.
Support is available for anyone affected by these reports and the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous people. Immediate emotional assistance and crisis support are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week through a national hotline at 1-844-413-6649.
You can also access, through the government of Canada, health support services such as mental health counselling, community-based support and cultural services, and some travel costs to see elders and traditional healers. Family members seeking information about a missing or murdered loved one can access Family Information Liaison Units.
