Albina Guarnieri

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been three full years since I first introduced my private member's bill on consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers and rapists.

It was blocked once by the subcommittee on private members' business. It was blocked again by the same committee six months later when I reintroduced the bill. Then again after the election it was finally permitted to be made votable and was voted at second reading and referred to the justice committee which did hear from many witnesses. Yesterday the bill's three year journey ended in three minutes.

The bill has the unfettered support of the attorney general and the solicitor general of Ontario, the justice minister of Alberta and the justice minister of Manitoba.

Bill C-251 passed second reading, as I mentioned, 81 to 3. The bill has the support of the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian police chiefs, the police services board and every major victims organization in the country. Bill C-251 has the support of both NAC and REAL Women. The bill has the support of the national Union of Solicitor General Employees.

The bill is the second of three key legislative requests made by the Canadian Police Association during its 1999 annual legislative conference and lobby day.

As this will likely be the last time in this parliament that concurrent sentences for multiple murderers and rapists are challenged, I would like to read into the record some of the arguments that were presented in opposition to the bill and respond to them.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association asked the question: Why does this particular offence, referring to sexual assault, have to attract consecutive sentences? Why is it centred out? Why do we not pick robbery, break and enters, car jackings, or home invasions? A convicted murderer who also presented to the justice committee had a similar problem distinguishing between rape and going through someone's drawers during a break and enter.

Sexual assault I would maintain is different from break and enter in that sexual assaults cause permanent, often catastrophic harm to the victim. From the perspective of the assailant or his legal representatives, this impact on the victim may not be of great importance. But again I remind the House that not long ago this House both supported consecutive sentences and mandatory minimums for offences involving firearms, including imitation firearms. Is a conviction for sexual assault any less important than a conviction for the use of an imitation firearm?

The myth that life is life was also perpetuated. The Criminal Lawyers' Association, the John Howard Society and Lifeline, a society of paroled murderers, all protested that a life sentence actually means life imprisonment: “The punishment for murder, regardless of whether it is first or second degree is imprisonment. There can be no greater term of imprisonment”.

Multiple murderers, according to Correctional Service Canada using its own statistics, serve an average of only 18.8 years in prison. That was the evidence of a witness from the Department of the Solicitor General who presented data to the committee showing that the largest group of multiple murderers in the system, 292 multiple murderers in total, can expect to spend only that long in prison.

I remind the House that Denis Lortie was luckier. He was released on full parole after 11 years after committing three murders. Three and one-half years for each murder. That is the reality of today's justice system. Once parole is granted, a life sentence can mean as little as one visit to a parole officer every three months. It usually means one visit a month according to one witness.

Even in the current law there is a degree of differentiation within a life sentence. The minimum parole ineligibility for first degree murder is 25 years, while the minimum for second degree is 10. Hence there is already ample precedent for applying different parole and eligibility periods for different crimes within a life sentence, as is called for in Bill C-251.

The assertion that a life sentence results in imprisonment for life is an Orwellian deception that serves to mislead Canadians.

The justice committee heard evidence of the extent of volume discounts in the current system. The committee was told that 321 multiple murderers had received concurrent sentences, and according to statistics, an average volume discount of 58%. That means the average multiple murderer will actually serve less than half his cumulative sentence in jail.

The committee also heard that 60% of all sex offenders admitted to federal prisons were multiple sex offenders who received concurrent sentences. The average volume discount was 68%. Time served under concurrent sentences was shown to be less than one-third of the time that would have been served under a consecutive sentence.

The committee also heard of the threat to society posed by paroled murderers. Various organizations claimed that released murderers posed no great threat to society but sadly, statistics tell a very different story. Paroled murderers, according to Correctional Service Canada, using its own statistics, are 100 times more likely to commit a future murder than the average Canadian.

Most Canadians would believe that a rehabilitated person should be no more likely to commit another murder than their neighbour. That is not the case. Paroled murderers remain a high risk group, 100 times more risky than any other Canadian. We were told in committee that five Canadians have been murdered because of the early release of murderers who were not genuinely rehabilitated.

The argument of constitutionality was raised. Various groups attempted to give the impression that Bill C-251 would not survive a charter challenge. But what the supreme court has actually said, and I cite Steel v Mountain:

It will only be on rare and unique occasions that a court will find a sentence so grossly disproportionate that it violates the provisions of section 12 of the charter which deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

And I cite Queen v Smith:

The test for review under section 12 is one of gross disproportionality because it is aimed at punishments that are more than merely excessive. We should be careful not to stigmatize every disproportionate or excessive sentence as being a constitutional violation.

The above cases and others demonstrate that there is no basis whatsoever to assume that consecutive sentences will fail a charter challenge. The only constitutional lawyer who testified before the committee expressed his legal opinion that there is no charter vulnerability.

There is no precedent anywhere in the world that would directly support a charter challenge. It is telling that no witness who spoke against the bill provided a legal opinion on the constitutional matter, choosing instead in large part to focus on matters of policy.

I would like to remind the House that Bill C-68, imposed by the same justice committee, imposed consecutive minimum prison terms for the use of a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of a crime. These consecutive minimums actually exceed the median time served for sexual assault.

Judicial discretion was raised. For multiple sexual offenders witnesses opposed to the bill could not agree among themselves as to the impact that the bill would have on the total sentence received by a multiple sex offender. Some said that it would cause a substantial increase. Others suggested that judges might adjust sentences for each offence to reach the same overall sentence.

Witnesses obviously have different views as to the impact of the bill on sentencing because they cannot predict the reaction of judges. Witnesses cannot predict the reaction of judges because judges will continue to maintain judicial discretion as to the overall sentences in these cases.

At present, in the case of multiple murderers there is no judicial discretion in sentences for first degree murder. Bill C-251 does not change that. A mandatory period of parole ineligibility will still apply but must be of a length that is proportional to the number of victims. Is that so unjust?

The question of costs was raised. Various organizations referred to cost and resource issues potentially associated with Bill C-251 in relation to multiple murderers. One presented a misleading figure that totalled the annual cost for the next 69 years. Bill C-251 can have no cost impact whatsoever for at least 10 years. The bill is not retroactive and can only have an impact on resources when future murderers come up for parole not less than 10 years from now.

Delayed parole for multiple murderers will cause an annual increase in prison population of about .1% per year for about 20 years beginning in the year 2010. This is derived from information provided to the justice committee by Mary Campbell of the Department of the Solicitor General.

With respect to the position of women's groups one witness claimed that the women's movement and NAC in particular were opposed to separate penalties for male offenders who victimized women and children. She said:

They have stopped short of calling for stiffer penalties or for longer periods of incarceration.

This statement is clearly intended to give the impression that NAC opposed the bill. As I mentioned earlier, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women sent a letter of support for Bill C-225. It supported the principle of my bill. REAL women also sent a letter of support.

Those were the arguments. The bill is supported by three provinces, police associations, women's groups and victims' groups. I leave it to the House as to whether it wishes to have a vote to provide Canadians with the view of parliamentarians on volume discounts for murderers and rapists.

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been three full years since I first introduced my private member's bill.

[Literacy, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is literacy action day and parliamentarians of all parties are welcoming activists and adult learners into their offices to discuss the daunting challenge we face of improving literacy in the country.

Sadly some 22% of adult Canadians have difficulty reading ordinary material and another 26% have limited reading skills. For thousands of Canadians the smallest, most ordinary activity from ordering a meal, to opening a bank account, to getting to work, to buying groceries, to following their prescription and to reading to a child can be difficult if not impossible.

As in so many things just realizing the problem is the first step toward a solution. I urge all my colleagues to take an active role in helping to promote the cause of literacy in parliament and in their own constituencies.

I encourage all Canadians to learn more about this issue and to learn more about how they can help to build a Canada where every Canadian can—

[Competition Act, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for bringing forward Bill C-235. This bill would amend the Competition Act and reverse a devastating trend against small business, entrepreneurs and the consumer.

The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has pursued this issue for years because he sees a long established Canadian industry, our independent gasoline retailers, being pushed out of existence by unfair and predatory wholesale practices. He also sees consumers with less and less real choice and an overwhelming sense of powerlessness at the hands of the large integrated producers.

In many ways Bill C-235 is about protecting the fundamental elements of Canadian entrepreneurship. Throughout this country in every business sector there are Canadians who have mortgaged all they own to establish their own enterprise, their own business, their own job. They are determined to compete by working harder, by working longer hours, by being more innovative, by taking smaller margins and, most important, by serving the customer better.

It is these entrepreneurs who have built Canada's thriving retail sector. They have provided consumers with choice, with service, with better value. In return these retailers eke out a living for their families, are a main source of first jobs for young people and contribute to the local community through their taxes and community work.

These independent entrepreneurs are able to offer the consumer competitive choice only when there is genuine competition among their suppliers, only when they can get an acceptable margin because suppliers want business and are willing to provide product at legitimate market rates. Regrettably, this is not the case today in several sectors, most particularly in the gas industry. It is now proven beyond serious debate that integrated suppliers of gasoline have sought to forward integrate into the consumer market, not by buying successful retailers or establishing more efficient retailers but by exterminating independent competition through manipulation of wholesale prices.

Recently the stories of gas retailer being forced out of the market have been publicized because of the threat posed to all small resellers by the same practices. In one report documented in the Financial Post illustrative of the overall situation a retailer in Georgetown near Mississauga received a notice from his supplier Shell Canada informing him that after more than 65 years as a retailer of Shell products he would be cut off from any supply at all. It was not enough that his margin had been squeezed as Shell raised wholesale prices and independent look alike outlets emerged in his markets.

Clearly Shell was not satisfied with the retail market share it was winning by normal business practices and had to use its power as a producer to weaken retail competition. It is my view that we cannot allow Canadian consumers to be at the mercy of a few large integrated providers of gasoline or any other commodities. We cannot allow Canadian resellers and small entrepreneurs to be driven out of the market by predatory pricing by less efficient integrated competitors. Canada will be most productive if we reward and protect efficiency at every stage of service delivery.

If Canada's oil companies want to win 100% of the retail market they should have to win it by fair competition. They have enough natural advantages, brand names, access to capital, ability to build service centres and restaurants to fuel sales. They must not be able to win the market by squeezing out the competition by raising wholesale prices close to or above retail.

We need Bill C-235 most because the current Competition Act is failing to protect Canadians against pricing that is clearly intended to reduce their choices and ultimately increase prices where no independent competition remains.

This week again motorists in southern Ontario awoke to another holiday weekend price gouge. Yet there is nothing they can do because there are so few independents left they have no choice but to buy from one of the big integrated producers. So let us not pretend we have an acceptable level of competition even today.

I ask all members of the House to cast a vote for Canada's small independent business people and protect consumers at the same time by supporting Bill C-235. If we want to preserve a country where independent, hardworking entrepreneurs can thrive we need more legislation like Bill C-235. We need more legislation to guarantee competition, more legislation against producers and brokers constricting and manipulating supply to destroy the small retailer, and more legislation to protect consumers from being at the mercy of those industries where genuine independent competition has already gone extinct.

It is time to send a message that this House will always put consumers first and will act decisively whenever confronted by an industry that abuses its position in the market to deprive Canadians of the competition.

Let me close by commending once again the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his unbending resolve on this issue in the face of an intense lobby. Consumers need this kind of initiative to put the spine back into competition laws in Canada.

[Transport, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for the past year Mississauga East residents have been subjected to intolerable levels of noise from low flying aircraft due to the operation of the new north-south runway.

The aircraft are now flying so low over residential areas and generating so much noise that one child could not hear his father's call to get out of the way of an oncoming vehicle. This runway has been anything but a vehicle promoting safety.

The local airport authority, the GTAA, has refused to consider any restrictions on its use which might alleviate the impact on residents until after it settles its dispute over development fees for the city of Mississauga.

I call on the Minister of Transport to amend the operational standards set by his department to restrict the usage of the new north-south runway to only those hours when the volume of flights exceeds the capacity of the existing north-south runway.

This is a measure which is safe, efficient and which—

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 1998]

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

Mr. Speaker, volume discounts for rapists and murderers, that is the law in Canada today. It is called concurrent sentencing. It means that serial predators can serve penalties for multiple crimes at the same time and be out on the street in only a fraction of the total sentencing.

Concurrent sentencing cheapens life. The lives of individual victims are erased from the sentencing equation. The suffering, the pain and the death of the second, third or eleventh victim is of no consequence to the courts. The minimum penalty always applies for even the most prolific killers.

For the third time in two years I am presenting a bill which offers parliament the opportunity to correct one of the justice system's most jagged obscenities. My bill, now called Bill C-251, asks that Canada stop giving volume discounts to its rapists and murderers through concurrent sentencing.

On this third attempt my bill has finally been deemed votable and for that I extend my heartfelt thanks to the 166 members of the House from all parties who lent their names in that cause. Their support will give all members the opportunity to weigh the arguments and determine whether consecutive sentencing will bring our justice system a little closer to justice.

The current penalties for murder were imposed over 20 years ago. Yet I can find no record of any minister or member of Parliament for that matter who spoke in the House in favour of concurrent sentencing for Canada's most vicious criminals. As near as I can tell, it was never discussed and certainly never available for public debate.

I believe it is time for the people's representatives in parliament to determine whether serial killers and rapists deserve special leniency they are currently afforded under the law and by our courts.

Bill C-251 has as its purpose three simple objectives, to reduce our inhumanity to the families of victims, to restore some truth in sentencing and to stop gambling away lives on the chance that a multiple murderer or serial predator will not attack again. It seeks to achieve these ends not by increasing the penalty for any one crime but by ensuring that these penalties have meaning by being served consecutively.

We do not have concurrent sentencing for parking tickets. If one parks illegally 10 times, one pays 10 tickets. One does not get a volume discount.

My bill seeks the same proportionality for the most serious and vicious crimes committed against Canadians. I believe very simply that justice is about proportional penalties, about relief for victims and about protecting the safety of citizens. Clearly, concurrent sentencing runs counter to each of these principles.

In the five years that I have been working on this issue, I have seen the human consequences of the current legal framework which is indifferent to the crimes committed against the second, the third or the eleventh victim of a serial predator.

I have talked to the families of victims and to victims themselves, some of whom never had their case prosecuted because the crown determined that any additional sentence would only be washed away by concurrent sentencing. Many of these victims have mustered the courage and drawn purpose from their personal horror by trying to change the system which treated them with such callous indifference. They journey here to Ottawa thinking that MPs, that parliament, will listen and spare future victims.

In the summer of 1996, not just one but two multiple murderers were free on parole in Mississauga. Concurrent sentencing had given these repeat killers volume discounts for their crimes.

For John Lyman Kehoe, the second child he murdered did not affect his sentence so he was free to create yet a third victim. On July 2, 1996, Kehoe and another paroled multiple murderer ambushed a real estate agent by the name of Wendy Carroll, slashed her throat and left her for dead. She survived, but no thanks to the justice system or the parole board which opened the cages of her assailants.

Wendy Carroll's life was nearly erased because our sentencing system erases victims. Had John Kehoe served a second consecutive term of parole ineligibility for the second child he murdered, he would not have been free to prey on Wendy Carroll or anyone else. Wendy Carroll wrote to me, after narrowly surviving these predators. She wrote:

For some reason our politicians have decided to grant rights to violent criminals who have taken every right away from their victims. What are they thinking? How many people must endure the horrific and extremely painful experience I did in fighting criminals like these for my life? How many more innocent people must die before parliament decides to make some changes?

Wendy Carroll cannot understand how two predators who had been convicted of killing four people between them could have been set free to attack again.

Albert Einstein once noted that “the world is a dangerous place to live in, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who let them do it”.

In this case, the cages were flung open by volume discounts applied to their sentences which disregarded all but the first victim and left two predators eligible for parole in half the time. Of course the National Parole Board proved to be no barrier between predator and prey.

Bill C-251 does not ask the parole board to be any less irresponsible. It does not increase the penalty for any crime. What it asks is that penalties that currently apply to each murder or rape conviction be served and not be written off as part of a bulk rate for carnage.

The consecutive sentencing approach proposed by my bill is an uncomplicated attempt to restore a degree of truth in sentencing. It recognizes that each sentence applies to a specific crime, an individual victim, a personal horror. It insists that the price for murder must not be marked down.

Last summer I had occasion to witness the obscene spectacle of Clifford Olson's 745 hearing. His remarks reinforced my resolve to continue to resubmit this bill until the issue was dealt with by this parliament. Olson read out a letter from his lawyer advising him to admit to all his murders at once. This way, the lawyer indicated, Olson could take full advantage of concurrent sentencing. Olson mocked in the court “They can't do nothing. They can only give me a concurrent sentence”.

Today we have to answer why Olson and other predators should only be given a concurrent sentence, and why our justice system should continue to offer a bulk rate for brutality.

The only persons negatively affected by my bill are future serial killers and serial rapists. This is not a bill that affects shoplifters, tax evaders, drug dealers, vandals, or petty thieves. Concurrent sentencing will still be available to all but our most vicious criminals.

I ask members of this House to place their compassion where it is deserved. There is no compassion in inflicting a lifetime of parole hearings on a family already destroyed by a serial killer.

Just two weeks ago I was visited by a father in my own riding who begins each and every year by going to a parole hearing to prevent the murderer of his 11-year old daughter from getting back on the streets. He owes it to his daughter to keep going because he knows that without his intervention the parole board would release her killer on to other victims. This father suffers from legislation that is focused on the welfare of killers rather than compassion for victims.

In the debates over the past two years I have heard no compelling arguments being offered by those who support volume discounts for serial predators.

In Hansard members will find it argued that we have too many people in jail and that we have to double bunk a quarter of all the inmates. I am not kidding. This was raised in this place just last year as a reason to give serial killers early release. I would hate to tell Wendy Carroll that she was nearly killed by two paroled multiple murderers just to increase the percentage of single cells. That sadly is what has been argued in this House.

It was also argued that we cannot have consecutive life sentences. Canadians are gradually catching on to the deception of life imprisonment. Half of all those convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life are released after less than 12 years. Denis Lortie, who machine gunned three people to death, was released after serving only 11 years, about three and a half years of lost freedom for each person he murdered. That is the bargain basement price of life in our courts and under our parole system.

Sickeningly, Denis Lortie was not an exception. He was representative of the fact that the only meaningful part of his sentence is the period of parole ineligibility. The rest of the sentence is just an option, an option our system allows to revictimize the parents or the relatives of the victims. It potentially forces them to join countless other victims in having to dredge up gruesome memories just to provide impact statements and petitions to keep the cages closed. But the quality of mercy is not strained.

It has been argued in this House that concurrent sentences “counter any need to reduce sentencing dispositions for individual offences in order to achieve an overall just result”. It is never a just result to reduce a sentence for rape or murder just because the victim was not the only victim of the predator involved.

It is worse yet for the courts to mask the fact that they do discount sentences in precisely that way time and time again through concurrent sentencing. There is no more justification for disguising a volume discount than there is for giving one.

The courts should not be able to placate victims by hiding the ugly truth behind their decisions. They should have to impose consecutive sentences when the crimes are as devastating as murder and sexual assault.

The argument has also been made in this House to suggest that we give volume discounts for rapists and murderers so that we can be different from the United States. I quote “I question whether we want to follow the American example of building more prisons”. This is the kind of hyperbole and exaggeration that protects an utterly flawed system with respect to Canada's most dangerous offenders.

I think the most efficient use of our prisons is to keep those predators who have killed or have sexually assaulted multiple victims securely away from future victims. If space in prison needs to be found, more creative forms of punishment and rehabilitation should be found for non-violent offenders guilty of property or commercial offences.

When it comes to serial predators, public safety must be our first concern. We know that each convicted serial predator is capable of more horrific crimes. Their actions have identified them as a permanent threat to society. To ignore that threat is to negligently endanger innocent lives.

A corrections research and development study from the Department of the Solicitor General showed that released child molesters who targeted boys had a 77% recidivism rate. That means for every 100 of these child molesters released, at least 77 more children are victimized. If a children's toy had that record, it would be banned.

The National Parole Board considers its record, its annual slaughter to be a success story. I have heard it argued that the National Parole Board is fit to decide what predators should be released, but the fact that the average murderer can get full parole within two years of eligibility illustrates that our parole system has lost its balance.

The Olson hearing proved to everyone who witnessed it that absolutely any predator can appear with a corrections worker who will attest to his good character and press the parole board for release. I was amazed when the corrections worker responsible for Clifford Olson testified in court as an Olson witness and talked of how he was more concerned with Olson's safety than he was his own, and how he relied on Olson to keep him informed on current events.

This Corrections Canada employee was even a member of the prison program planning board. He told the court that Olson was a diligent worker who did a good job. Addressing Olson directly, the same corrections worker said “Most of our interactions were done in an open room sitting side by side at a table. I never saw you as a threat to me. My main concern was more for your safety than for my own”. He went on “I am sure everyone is well aware that you are considered a jailhouse lawyer. They consulted you for advice. You gave them advice. You helped them prepare documents and by the peer group, you were well thought of”.

The corrections worker added later “I always found you very interesting to work with as a matter of fact, for several reasons. One is you are well read. Because I live in a rural part of Saskatchewan, I do not have television facilities and you had several channels on television. You kept me informed of what was going on”.

If Clifford Olson can get such an endorsement from Corrections Canada, every other murderer must deserve the Lady Byng trophy. That experience was a demonstration of the distorted picture parole boards must be given on a regular basis. If Clifford Olson can find champions among corrections personnel, so can any criminal.

Some time ago I watched a television debate where one of the commentators suggested that consecutive sentencing for Clifford Olson, which would amount to genuine life imprisonment, would amount to nothing more than revenge. This sort of hyperbole is common in the predator protection industry. Life imprisonment is not some form of revenge.

If the families of the Olson victims were to hack him to death with a rusty axe, that would be revenge. Sentencing Olson to life in prison where he can educate corrections workers on current events is not revenge but very civilized and measured justice in response to a series of vicious crimes.

It has always been the tactic of those who earn their living defending predators to accuse anyone who opposes the early release of serial predators of being emotional, vengeful and of giving in to their primitive instincts. They think instead it is somehow superior to test their pompous theories by releasing known serial predators on to an unsuspecting public.

By far, the most distasteful argument I have heard in the defence of the status quo also had the most impact. When I first brought this bill to the House, one of its chief opponents told me that he could not support my bill because he did not want to create a victims industry. That is right. He did not want public policy to result in a victim's industry that would continuously challenge established legal practices. In short, he wanted to preserve the silence of the lambs.

Instead it is the predator protection industry that is supported. It is that industry that thrives on the endless parole process that annually threatens to unleash the chained savagery of predators, consuming untold tax dollars while dismembering the future of victims.

Let me summarize the arguments to defend volume discounts for rapists and murderers. They say we need concurrent sentencing because we do not want to double bunk predators. We do not want to reveal the fact that the courts are discounting sentences for individual crimes. We want to be different from the United States. We do not want to be emotional. Most importantly, we do not want to create a victim's industry.

That is all I have heard in the past two years to defend a system that cheapens life, revictimizes the families of the dead and recklessly exposes every Canadian to unnecessary risk from released predators.

I am asking members of this House to reach beyond the grasp of a legal system that not only fails victims but fails us all. I ask them to smooth the barbed face of Canadian justice and allow victims to find justice in our laws. I ask them to defy the predator protection industry by ending volume discounts for rapists and murderers.

[The Late Mr. Bruce Beer, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 1998 the long and distinguished life of Bruce Beer came to a peaceful conclusion after 87 memorable years. Residents of my riding of Mississauga East and others throughout the Peel region as well as today's deputy prime minister will affectionately recall a hardworking community minded friend who embodied grassroots politics.

In 1962 Bruce Beer stunned political observers when he was elected to the House of Commons and became the very first Liberal to represent Peel county in the 20th century. Residents in Peel remember his bubbly populist campaigns often quenched by his supporters' chants of “we want Beer, we want Beer”, which was obviously a winning slogan.

Peel residents showed so much respect for Bruce Beer that he was victorious in four consecutive elections. The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson recognized Bruce Beer as a man who emerged from the steepest challenges of the century to represent his community in Parliament. Mr. Pearson appointed him as parliamentary secretary to several ministers during his tenure, including finance minister Mitchell Sharp.

At the age of 12 Bruce Beer put his own education aside to help out on the family farm in difficult times and continued to sacrifice his clear academic potential in support of his family and community throughout the Great Depression.

Only at the end of that sparse era did Bruce Beer return to academics. Earning many scholarships, Mr. Beer graduated from the Ontario Agricultural College in 1939. For the next 20 years Bruce Beer earned the confidence of the many diverse farming communities in Peel. He was sowing the seeds of his future in politics.

After his groundbreaking victory for the Liberals in 1962, Beer continued to fight for the issues of greatest concern to his constituents. His own experiences in the Depression led to a staunch advocacy for farm loans programs and milk subsidies that maintained the strength of the farming communities in southern Ontario. He was a fixture on the agriculture committee and was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture for the bulk of his career where he could have maximum impact on the issues closest to his heart and community.

Mirroring the transition occurring in Peel County during his tenure as Peel's MP, Bruce Beer broadened his impact beyond agriculture. While representing rural farming communities as well as townspeople, Bruce Beer met the challenges of a region engaged in rapid transition toward urban industrialization. He received the post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance at a time of unprecedented economic and industrial expansion in Canada and especially in Peel which has since expanded from one to seven ridings.

Mr. Beer continued to serve his community after retiring from public life in 1972, always making time to assist people in the community.

Mr. Beer is survived by his wife, three children and six grandchildren, who can all be proud to have known the man whose potential and hard work eclipsed the world of challenges and lead him to the House of Commons while never leaving his roots in the farming communities of southern Ontario.

I am sure all members of this House join me in extending heartfelt sympathies to Bruce Beer's family who can rest assured that his memories will live on in the House of Commons as they will throughout the region of Peel.

[Human Resources Development, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Disabled Canadians continue to face unique hurdles in their efforts to penetrate the workforce and contribute to Canada's growth with sustained employment.

What action is the government taking to give disabled Canadians better opportunities to contribute their talents to Canadian industry?

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences).

Mr. Speaker, I stand yet again for the victims of multiple murderers and other serial predators to introduce for the third time a bill to end volume discounts for rapists and murderers.

Most acutely, over the past few months, Canadians have witnessed in justified disgust how Canada's courts automatically absolve murderers and rapists of all but their first offence through the very legal obscenity of concurrent sentencing.

I would like to thank the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for seconding this bill and for joining the members of the House who place the rights of victims and the protection of law-abiding citizens ahead of the interests of our most vocal predator protection industry.

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

[Mother Teresa, September 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the world lost the moral beacon of the 20th century. Nobel Peace Prize winner Mother Teresa led a life that challenged the modern world by teaching us that lifestyle is not more important than life.

She accumulated no material possessions, shunned political power and never succumbed to moral compromises. Her life was consumed by the simple goal of providing food, education, medical care, love and hope to the sick and desolate.

Her notion of charity was not to hold black tie fundraisers and send others to do the messy work. No, Mother Teresa's example was to pick the maggots out of people's open wounds herself.

No human has done so much, for so many, for so little. But her life's work, not even respect for the dead, could spare her from those who want to protect their world from her message. Fully half of the media's coverage of Mother Teresa's death was devoted to criticism of her life and beliefs.

There are obviously many maggot infested wounds that still need to be cleansed by the millions she inspired. She will be remembered simply and affectionately as Mother.