Albina Guarnieri

[Vic De Zen, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was built by attracting skills, energy and talent from around the world with the promise of boundless opportunity and a quality of life that has no equal. One Canadian life history epitomizes the struggles and successes that are the Canadian dream for so many newcomers.

Vic De Zen, a tool and die maker, arrived in Canada in 1962 with little English, little money and few immediate prospects. Within 10 years he founded Royal Group Technologies, a company employing over 8,000 people that has made Canadians proud at home and abroad.

Vic De Zen has not only contributed to Canadian society. He has reached beyond the borders of his country to show how Canadian ingenuity can raise living standards and environmental conditions for struggling people in developing countries around the world who can now build secure futures from secure homes.

Vic De Zen's belief in Canada has brought this country esteem and gratitude from across the globe.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what is left to say to that comment but ditto? I could not agree more. I think the House will certainly find a way to ensure that our police officers and firefighters are suitably equipped to fight the ordeals and challenges that we face ahead.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. There is no doubt in my mind that the government must resolve to fulfill its commitment to eradicating terrorism. We heard earlier from the former solicitor general who said the government has a responsibility. We have heard from the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister who said there will be a comprehensive plan in place to deal with terrorism. I think the collective will of the House will forge the right policies for the country.

There is no doubt in my mind that Canadians have had an illusion shattered in recent days and will demand and expect a robust response from their government and their parliament.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, six days ago the most devastating attack ever against the free world rendered our world far less free. No longer are we free to fly without a credible fear of hijacking, no longer are we free to travel anywhere any time without extended delays at the border or security check-ins.

We are no longer free to presume that everyone who enters our country is here to pursue a better life. We are definitely no longer free to take for granted the role of our firefighters and police officers, some of whom from my region have gone to New York to help at the scene.

The United States has paid an enormous price for leading the free world. Thousands of people left for work last Tuesday worrying only about their job, the economy and family bills. Horror and death awaited so many who had no idea that they were at war. Thousands of family members wait and hope. Time is needed to mourn the dead and then the free world must act to protect the living.

The terrible tragedy and loss of life in New York has been called an attack on America, but Canada is far from immune to the virus of terrorism that is infecting the globe.

For the first time terrorism from the Middle East has drawn the blood of civilians in the United States. We have seen suicide attacks against civilian target groups in Israel, Egypt and in western Europe. We have even seen an Egyptian airliner take off from New York and then be driven into the sea by a suicidal pilot, again not that long ago. For some reason we thought we were safe in North America. Terrorism was viewed as a distant threat that was only raised by alarmists.

Today we realize that our security was an illusion. We were protected more by chance than by choice. Now, as Dick Cheney said yesterday, we would be absolute fools to not protect ourselves from the credible threat that we now know has always existed.

Canadians quickly understood that the threat against the United States could quickly find Canadian targets in range. I know that within hours of the attack at least one major Canadian company convened a meeting to discuss whether it might also be a target before continuing its Toronto operations. Simply remaining at work was now considered to pose enough risk that it was at least worthy of discussion at the highest levels.

Today Canadians are faced with a disturbing choice. We can defy the goals of the terrorists who resist constraints to our freedom, changes to our laws and stifling security measures. Alternatively, we can accept that our world has changed and our open and almost casual concept of national security is now a threat to our freedom and no longer its hallmark.

President Bush has repeatedly said that the United States is already at war, but this is a war where people are in fact the principal weapons. The men responsible for last Tuesday's tragedy brought only themselves to North America. Immigration would have found nothing in their bags or backgrounds to stop many from entering the country. Yet these men were the most dangerous of weapons, and efforts to keep them out of North America will be the top priority of U.S. law enforcement for the foreseeable future.

The restrictions on the U.S. border to Canada will likely be proportional to the laxness that Americans perceive in our entry requirements. With our country entirely dependent on the free movement of goods across the U.S. border, tougher border security could become the greatest trade barrier we have ever faced. If American plants cannot rely on Canadian shipments getting across the border on time, they will simply switch suppliers with immense consequences.

To prevent this hardship, Canada must demonstrate to the United States that it would be as hard or harder for a terrorist to get into Canada than to go directly to the United States. This inevitably requires changes to our immigration, refugee and visitor visa policies.

We know that the vast majority of immigrants and visitors to Canada come from countries where no realistic terrorist risk exists or has ever existed. We must make sure the current crisis does not restrict the flow of talent, skills and investment from new immigrants on whom we rely for so much of our growth. As well, we must not simply cut off Canadian citizens from their relatives abroad through the widespread denial of visitors permits.

We already have very restrictive visa rules when it comes to people who it is feared will stay and work in Canada. Among the targets of deportation in recent months was a Polish family who had come here, built a business, employed six people and never taken a dime from our social services. Their deportation, while devastating for the children involved, was also a loss for Canada as good, contributing business people were lost.

Conversely, a terrorist by the name of Ressam was never deported and would still be here were it not for U.S. border guards finding explosives in his trunk. We clearly need to change our focus.

It is more than apparent that air travel to Canada from overseas will need to be subject to meaningful security measures. The fact that people can arrive at Pearson airport without any documentation and claim refugee status is an indication of the level of security we impose overseas.

Clearly no one can now be allowed to board a plane bound for Canada without at least a cursory security check, and everyone will need documentation. We must now consider foreign airports as entry points into Canada and establish immigration security checkpoints, much like the United States has at Pearson airport today.

These measures will not make us safe. We cannot stop a determined person from getting to Canada or the United States, but at least it must be a robust and comprehensive effort.

The aftermath of the World Trade Center has brought into question the respect with which we treat our own emergency personnel. In many policy debates of late, firefighters and police officers have too often been treated as regular workers whose pay and pensions must be restricted because every other group of workers would expect the same.

In New York we saw that the job of police and fire crews is not like any other job. While people with other jobs fled down the stairs of the World Trade Center to safety, firefighters were racing up into harm's way and indeed their own deaths.

It is common to salute the bravery and sacrifice of firefighters and police at times of great crisis when their lives are lost in great numbers. I call on members of the House to demonstrate the same respect to the thousands of Canadians who have the courage to sign up to be the first at the scene of any disaster and whose willingness to risk all keeps the rest of us safe.

The attack on America touched every Canadian. We saw the trauma. We shared the fear. We shared the loss and we learned an important lesson. We learned that security that is taken for granted can be taken away.

[Petitions, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the tireless efforts of Ms. Carolyn Dazé, I have the honour to present a petition signed by some 10,000 individuals from across Ontario concerning the current inadequate state of Canada's laws dealing with cruelty to animals. Inspired by a recent act of brutality to a dog in Bewdley, Ontario, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to enact into law significant increases in penalties for those persons convicted of cruelty to animals.

[The Economy, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, through the efforts of all Canadians we are enjoying some of the best economic conditions in over a decade. The unemployment rate was 6.8% in January, the lowest level since April 1976.

This is the largest decline in unemployment under the leadership of any Canadian government in over 50 years. Over 1.7 million new jobs have been created since the Liberal government took office in 1993.

Every Canadian is a part of this success: the lowest unemployment rate for women since 1974, 5.5%; for young people since 1990, 12.5%. With 16 consecutive months of economic growth the Canadian economy is experiencing the longest uninterrupted surge forward in over a decade. Job creation and economic growth are part of every party's political platform, but it is only this government that has delivered on that promise in liberal proportions.

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences).

Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-251 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 36th Parliament.

This bill would end automatic volume discounts for Canada's multiple murderers and rapists. It seeks to give judges greater ability to achieve justice in the interest of all Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Committees Of The House, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Looking Ahead: an Interim Report on Older Workers”.

The committee is united in its determination to respond to the re-employment crisis facing Canada's aging workforce. On behalf of all committee members, I express a special thanks to Danielle Bélisle and Kevin Kerr for their hard work. I would also like to express a heartfelt thanks to all committee members for their dedication and commitment.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences), be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, last week, for the second time, this House resoundingly supported changes to the Canadian justice system that would give judges the ability to set fair and proportionate sentences for multiple murderers, finally putting an end to Canada's automatic bulk rate for murder.

Since that vote, many of the more than 500 Canadian families who have been devastated by multiple murderers have seen fit to write to me, call in to talk shows, or otherwise let Canadians understand the truth about our current system. They have never been able to understand why anyone would insist that the murder of their child, spouse or parent should continue to be meaningless to the courts. Fortunately, they have found new faith in parliament by last week's decision by this House and many have written to express their thanks to members for recognizing the value of the precious lives they have lost and the need for justice.

Another all too common message was that of victims' families being told by a sentencing judge that he wished he could give a more meaningful sentence for the murder of their child, but that the law simply would not allow it. That is the message that we are hearing from the judiciary in open court, a clear message that judges need more latitude to set fair and proportionate sentences for these most horrific of crimes.

That is exactly what Bill C-251 is designated to deliver. It would allow a judge to look at the facts of a case where a murderer has been convicted of the murder of not just one, but at least two human beings. The judge could look at those facts and make an assessment of the intent of the offender, the brutality of the crimes and any mitigating circumstances that may be relevant.

Having considered all of the evidence, a judge would determine first whether it is warranted to impose a consecutive sentence or grant a concurrent sentence. If the judge determines that fairness and proportionality require a consecutive sentence, he has the further discretion to determine the length of that additional term of parole ineligibility, anywhere from one day to 25 years. I call that double discretion.

For years I have heard colleagues insist that judicial discretion was necessary and essential even in cases of multiple first degree murder. I have listened and I have learned from their advice. Now judicial discretion is the cornerstone of the multiple murder and multiple sexual assault provisions of this bill.

By passing Bill C-251, parliament will be declaring that every victim of murder or sexual assault should matter to the court. At the same time it will provide judges the latitude to account for the specific circumstances of an individual case. As always, we will be entrusting the judiciary with the responsibility to render fair and proportionate sentences within the parameters of the law.

During the past week I have heard that for some members judicial discretion is not enough. Some hold the view that a multiple murderer who kills his victims in quick succession should be immune from additional consequences arising from the second, third or fourteenth murder. The next Mark Lepine, Denis Lortie or George Lovie should all be guaranteed concurrent, meaningless sentences for all but their first murder, according to this argument.

I say that there should be no such guarantee. There should be no automatic benefit to planning to kill several victims in the same event. Instead, I propose that a judge is best placed to determine what is fair and proportionate based on the facts. Let the judges do their job.

Another argument back from the slag heap this week is the potential cost of keeping multiple murderers in jail longer. I had thought this argument had long since been put to rest, but back it comes when all else fails.

Let me be clear once again. There can be no cost implications of the multiple murder provisions of Bill C-251 for at least 10 years as the bill is not retroactive and all multiple murderers serve at least 10 years anyway. We know that it will not cost one cent for ten years. Moreover, multiple murderers currently account for about 2% of the prison population and it will take 30 years for a new generation of multiple murderers to replace them. By the year 2030 the total prison population may well be 1% to 2% larger than it would be otherwise. That is the price of justice insofar as multiple murderers are concerned.

One reservation put forward over the last days was particularly curious, that being that the bill has moved through parliament too quickly. One even described it as having whistled through parliament. Today is the sixth time the Chamber has debated this bill over the last three years. It was introduced three times before being made votable. Second reading occurred not yesterday, but seven months ago. It was held in committee for over four months and there was yet another debate at report stage. More debate is yet to come in the Senate. Parliament has had much time to debate this issue and render a well considered decision. The House has decisively, on two occasions, voted in support of Bill C-251. It is a decision that should be respected.

For months I have been asked to put a label on Bill C-251. Is it liberal to initiate this kind of change? I decided to find out whether it was liberal and to find out whether people of different political stripes had different views about consecutive versus concurrent sentences for murder and sexual assault. I commissioned a professional polling company, often regarded as the Liberal Party pollster, to find out how Canadians broadly viewed this issue. What they found did not surprise me.

Intuitively, I have always felt that the Canadian sense of justice was non-partisan. That is the message I got at the door in my riding. I got the same message in Quebec, the maritimes and the west. All people, of every political stripe, from every region of this country, have seen the injustice of concurrent sentencing in their communities. Their outrage is not political; it arises from the people's sense of justice.

Pollara found that 90% of Canadians support consecutive sentencing for rapists and murderers on a mandatory basis. With judicial discretion, that number would surely increase to an even higher level. What the numbers show is very interesting when we examine the political parties that respondents support. Ninety-two per cent of Liberals polled support consecutive sentencing. Support in the other five political parties was similarly overwhelming, with no party showing less than 83% support for consecutive sentencing. Just as striking was the fact that women were the strongest supporters of consecutive sentencing, with only 5% opposed to mandatory back-to-back sentences.

Consecutive sentencing for murderers and rapists defies the labels. It is as non-partisan as the justice that victims in this country require.

In amending the bill, I took into account more than just the criticisms that some had offered. I also wished to address legitimate concerns over the image given by certain potential sentences. In particular, there seems to be some discomfort with the notion of even a Clifford Olson being sentenced to a fully consecutive term which could reach 275 years. In response, I agreed to yet another amendment that would cap any additional sentence at 25 years. Hence, sentences will not be imposed which go far beyond the life expectancy of most multiple murderers.

We have before us today a bill I believe reflects the input of many members of the House, including some who sadly continue to oppose it. It achieves the core objective of eliminating the automatic bulk rate for murder that disregarded the second, third or eleventh victim. It makes this progress with all the safeguards of complete judicial discretion.

I urge all members to look upon Bill C-251 as a bill that responds to their advice and builds on the common ground that we have found over the past three years. It is a bill that will contribute to justice by providing greater proportionality and fairness, and by recognizing that every victim deserves a measure of justice.

[Division No. 541, May 31st, 1999]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.