Albina Guarnieri

[Committees Of The House, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages on the application of the Official Languages Act in the national capital region.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, we request a comprehensive response from the government.

[Beijing Concord College, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this coming September will mark the opening of the Beijing Concord College. This unique institution on the outskirts of China's capital city will open its doors to Chinese and Canadian students who will earn diplomas recognized by both Canada and the People's Republic of China.

The New Brunswick department of education and the founders of this college have collaborated to create a visionary institution that will become an educational bridge between our two countries fostering understanding and opportunity.

The language and business skills learned at the college will give future graduates the foundation to develop joint ventures and trade opportunities between Chinese and Canadian businesses and will build on the $8 billion of bilateral trade already benefiting both countries.

I congratulate the province of New Brunswick and the founders of the Beijing Concord College, especially Mr. Francis Pang, for their global vision and foresight in developing this landmark educational partnership between Canada and China.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1996]

moved that Bill C-321, 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, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ontario.

For the second time this year I present a bill which offers Parliament the opportunity to correct one of our justice system's most jagged obscenities. This bill, now called Bill C-321, asks that Canada stop giving volume discounts to its rapists and murders through concurrent sentencing. My bill is about reasonable and required change that every major victims group in the country is demanding with the support of most Canadians.

Bill C-321 has as its purpose three 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.

This debate is about competing interests. It is about the interests of the families of victims who need the peace only time can offer to salvage the remnants of their shattered lives. It is about the interests of victims who have every reason to fear the release of a predator and who can never escape the endless parole process that annually threatens to unleash the chained savagery of their assailants. These interests compete with the far more lucrative interests of the predator protection industry which regards each predator as a perpetual revenue generating opportunity.

Since I reintroduced this bill I have sadly been visited by too many victims of crime who have now come to realize that they are also victims of Parliament. Some had lost children, some had lost parents, some had lost spouses, but all had lost faith in the courts, lost faith in parole boards and, most of all, lost faith in Parliament. They all went through trials where the focus of the defence was to weaken their resolve, to humiliate them, to wear them down in an effort to reduce the number of charges or perhaps provoke a plea bargain. Every survivor endured months, even years at the hands of our courts only to find that the predator convicted of the murder of their child, spouse or parent would serve not a single day in jail for that crime. Concurrent sentencing always applies. Judges have no flexibility. The lowest price is the law every day.

Victims come to court with a naive sense that they will find justice there but leave with the reality that their family's tragedy is of virtually no consequence in the sentencing equation. They carry on their lives in helpless outrage, left to pick up the pieces of their dismembered future. But their suffering is far from over. Every parole hearing, every 745 hearing will confiscate any peace of mind they may have regained. Some victims cannot cope, they cannot work, they cannot sleep. The strain tears apart what is left of their families.

Seventy four per cent of parents of murdered children separate; 100 per cent of these families have been sentenced to life imprisoned by injustice, revictimized by the inhumanity inflicted by a justice system driven by billable hours.

But some victims do muster courage and draw purpose from their personal horror by trying to change the system which treated them with such cruelty and disregard. They journey to Ottawa thinking that MPs in Parliament will listen and spare future victims from the barbed face of Canadian justice. However, they soon realize that victims are widely regarded here as a meddlesome nuisance to the lucrative business of justice and watch how their every effort and initiative is stifled by process or hidden opposition.

Victims know that some members of this House mock them as the walking wounded or try to trivialize their efforts by branding them as a victims industry. They endure the contempt of those in this place who think themselves far too sophisticated, far too educated to be swayed by any tragedy caused by their own resistance to change.

The casualties of our inaction continue to mount. Earlier this summer not 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 in time to create yet a third victim. On July 2, just five months ago, Kehoe and another paroled multiple murderer ambushed a real estate agent, 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 consecutive term of parole ineligibility for the second child he murdered, as Bill C-321 prescribes, he would not have been free to prey on Wendy Carroll or anyone else.

Wendy Carroll writes: "Both of these two animals murdered twice before yet only served one 12 year sentence each. This is justice? Where is the justice for the two dead children, the two dead adults and me? I would like someone to explain to me how rehabilitated they both are. I have many scars and permanent injuries to show otherwise".

The only answer we have for Wendy Carroll is that she was part of the annual sacrifice of victims that is necessary to sustain our parole system and all the fees it generates. On average a person a month is murdered by a paroled criminal-a person a month. 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 did not have to do any research to find a case where a multiple murderer was paroled early and attacked another victim. The place where it happened was a five minute drive from my house and it happened just two weeks after I resubmitted this bill.

The victim cannot understand how two predators who have been convicted of killing four people between them could have been set free to attack again. Their cages were flung open by volume discounts applied to their sentences which disregarded all but the first victim and left them eligible for parole in half the time. Their parole was not denied for long by the National Parole Board.

Why did each of these savages deserve to have his second victim reduced to a mention not worthy of an additional sentence? Why were these predators considered safe to be placed in our communities?

I see your signal, Mr. Speaker. I am going past ten minutes. I am taking the remaining time.

We do not bother with investigations anymore. It is simply a matter of routine for dangerous criminals to be released and for new victims to be savaged. Bill C-321 does not ask the parole board to be any less irresponsible. It does not increase the penalty for any crime. What it asks for is penalties that currently apply to each murder or rape conviction to be served and not be written off as part of the bulk rate for carnage.

A little truth in sentencing, a small measure of public safety, is all that is asked. Perhaps it may also gently reverse the cheapening of life that continues in our courts.

It is the height of irony this week that we will commemorate the slaughter of 14 women by Marc Lépine seven years ago. The irony is that if Marc Lépine had not killed himself he would have been eligible for parole in perhaps as few as three years from now.

Denis Lortie was released in just 11 years for machine-gunning three people to death. How much longer would Lépine have served and why is it that some MPs who rail against such tragedy also support volume discounts for the cause?

Wendy Carroll 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?"

Perhaps the subcommittee on Private Members' Business holds that wisdom or perhaps can issue Wendy Carroll with a medal, with a clasp for surviving Parliament's negligence.

I suspect no fact can illustrate the need for Bill C-321 better than the tragic murders of Arnold and Donna Edwards. They were murdered when George Lovie was released immediately after assaulting their daughter. Today the family can look forward to parole and 745 hearings to start in just 10 years. After that time they will have to be constantly on guard in case Lovie is released and hunts down the rest of their family. They are in that situation for one reason. Lovie got a volume discount, sentenced as if he had killed only once and committed no other crimes. Had Bill C-321 been in place at that time, he would have received at least 50 years of parole ineligibility, giving the surviving members of the Edwards family the freedom to rebuild their lives without parole hearings, without fear.

After the trial and the sentence the Edwards family were naive enough to think that Parliament would change the system just because of a few more casualties. Don Edwards, the son of the victims, wrote in a published article: "Letters by family and friends demanding change to the justice system have been sent to three Prime Ministers, cabinet ministers, MPs, MPPs, police, the Ontario Complaints Commissioner. Some have responded and

others have not. In follow up letters some MPs could not even spell my parents' name correctly. Sad," Edwards said.

He continues: "Family and friends now realize politicians and their aides have mastered the games of pass the responsibility, don't look to me for change, let's talk around the issue and who cares, convicted murders I'll protect".

Edwards' effort spawned a 100,000 name petition supporting a private member's bill, Bill C-330, presented by the member for Hamilton West. Edwards was in the visitor's gallery as one MP denied unanimous consent to have that bill made votable. History repeats as the tragedies mount. Today another MP is here waiting to deny unanimous consent. It is part of the system, part of the strategy to forever frustrate every effort for change.

Debbie Mahaffy spoke for all victims when she wrote to all of us: "Shame on you all for adding to our pain and for your lack of humanity, your lack of will to act appropriately and your lack of wisdom to make a difference". Debbie Mahaffy is here in the gallery today with other victims to see for themselves which MP will defend obscenity and uphold volume discounts for the next Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo. They have come in the faint hope that the contempt victims now expect from their MPs will not rise again to protect the predators who destroyed their lives.

I ask again for the unanimous consent to declare Bill C-321 a votable item.

[Osteoporosis, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House and all Canadians that November is osteoporosis awareness month.

Osteoporosis is a degenerative bone disease that predisposes individuals to the risk of fractures. It affects 1.4 million Canadians over the age of 50, most of them women. It is estimated that one in four post-menopausal women has osteoporosis which often leads to a substantial deterioration in their quality of life while incurring considerable costs to the individual, their families and caregivers.

The Canadian MultiCentre osteoporosis study, a five year study supported by Health Canada and several private sector partners, provides better insight into this disease, its risk factors and its prevention.

We welcome team efforts such as this one, where many sectors get together to face a common challenge. The government also supports community programs designed to inform victims and help them improve their quality of life.

[Baltic Evening, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 22nd annual Baltic Evening which is organized by both the Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group for the Baltic Peoples and the Baltic Federation in Canada. This event commenced in 1973 to bring together the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Canadian communities, members of Parliament, Senators and representatives from the diplomatic corps.

Since the independence of the three Baltic states in 1991, the Baltic communities have been working proactively to help build Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. These three countries are open for business and Canadians are encouraged to invest in trade with them.

In celebrating Baltic Evening we are acknowledging the great contribution made by the Baltic communities in building Canada. Our vibrant multicultural communities have assisted Canada in projecting a positive image to the Baltic states and all around the world. Félicitations à tout le monde.

[Women's History Month, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month, this year's opportunity to celebrate the contributions of the women who laboured to shape our nation.

This very special month affords us the opportunity to celebrate past and present contributions by the women who have helped shape our country and to encourage future generations of women to continue to contribute to the enrichment of our country.

Too often the achievements of Canadian women have been denied the prominence they deserve in our recorded history. Women's History Month unearths the roots of Canadian accomplishment and identifies the fingerprints of women who toiled to make the difference.

This year's celebration coincides with the annual commemoration of the Persons Case of 1929, a legal and political battle to have all Canadian women considered as persons under the British North America Act.

I call most strongly upon all of my colleagues in the House of Commons to celebrate the contributions women have made to Canada and to take part during October in the activities of Women's History Month.

[Research And Development, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week Mississauga has once again been the target of massive investment in research and development.

Astra AB, the parent company of Mississauga East based Astra Pharma, has launched the development of a revolutionary new treatment for osteoporosis. In a new partnership with Allelix Biopharmaceuticals, also of Mississauga, Astra will provide Allelix with $50 million in licensing and development funds to move this new product forward aggressively.

I congratulate Astra Pharma and Allelix for bringing $50 million worth of jobs and investment to Mississauga and offering relief to the world's 200 million sufferers of osteoporosis.

[Criminal Code, June 20th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences).

Mr. Speaker, I stand again for those victims of multiple murderers and rapists who have been dismissed as irrelevant by Canada's justice system. My bill, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South, is a re-submission of Bill C-274 and calls for consecutive sentencing for serial and multiple murderers and rapists.

I re-submit this bill today encouraged by the words of the Minister of Justice on Monday night in committee. He said: "It seems to me that when we are dealing with someone who has taken more than one life we are entitled to take that into account". He continued: "I do not know why it is difficult to perceive the difference between a single offence and multiple offences. In terms of whether I would support consecutive terms for murderers, I might well". So says the Minister of Justice, who indicated that he has encouraged policy work on the subject and who said it should be looked at.

This bill offers the Minister of Justice and this Parliament the opportunity to defy the predator protection industry by ending volume discounts for rapists and murderers.

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

On the Order: Motions

June 14, 1996-

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-274, 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 murders 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 streets 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.

Canadians cannot forget the spectacle of Denis Lortie after he machine gunned three people to death in Quebec City. It would have been hard to imagine at the time that he could be back on the street today after serving only three and a half years for each person he killed. That is the bargain basement price of life in our courts and parole system.

Denis Lortie is an unusual case, not because he is a multiple murderer or because he was released after a wrist slap of a prison term. Denis Lortie's case is unusual because the public is aware of it.

The majority of murderers and serial sex offenders are returned to neighbourhoods without publicity or warning. Trials and convictions do attract publicity and attention and the public is always lulled by the hoax of a life sentence they read in the morning paper. But 10 years later they really hear the truth. The parole board has short changed justice, written off the victims as yesterday's news and freed up a bunk bed for the next killer.

But 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. For first degree murder the median has historically been 14 years. Life only means life for the murder victim who is not there to protest his or her sentence and is never eligible for parole.

The predator has also dealt a life sentence to the victim's family. For them the comforting illusion of safety in our society has been shattered. They have to live with the stark truth that the only law that protects them is the law of averages, the chance that none of the predators roaming our communities will get around to you today.

Sharon Rosenfeldt had the courage to recall her personal tragedy in support of my bill. She writes:

Concurrent sentencing is appalling. My son was one of the eleven children murdered by serial child killer Clifford Olson. The fact that he is serving eleven concurrent life sentences is ludicrous. As the mother of one of Olson's victims, I have difficulty in dealing with the reality that he is serving the equivalent of one life sentence instead of the eleven life sentences he should be serving.

Why is it justice for Clifford Olson to serve no additional penalty for murdering 10 additional children? Why can the victim's families not have peace of mind and never have to hear from Clifford Olson again?

My bill would have spared them the revictimization of having even the slightest concern that Clifford Olson would be paroled as his combined parole ineligibility would have and should have been 275 years, not the 25-year bargain given by our current system. How can a civilized society be so tolerant and generous toward the savagery of a Clifford Olson and be so dismissive of the death sentences forever served by his victims.

The justice minister not long ago observed that victims have been the orphans of the justice system and how right he was. That is why so many victims groups exist. Among those who support my bill are Debbie Mahaffy's Taking Action for Victims, CAVEAT, Victims of Violence, Citizens United for Safety and Justice, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and the Canadian Police Association.

But our institutions are mostly responsive to lawyers, lobbyists, inmate advocates. Criminals can rely on the system that orphaned their victims. The murder victim has no representative, no lobbyist and no lawyer because the victim is dead. The only argument we will hear about the victim's lost rights will come from family and from people who recognize the injustice and obscenity of the current system.

Let us face it, the predator protection industry is part of our modern economy. Justice cannot compete with currency. But the victims of Canadian justice, though unpaid, refuse to be unheard.

Priscilla de Villiers writes:

It is an absolute insult to victims of violent crime that each murder, subsequent to the first murder of an offender is considered to be free.

Why is it that the second murder victim does not count? Very simply, Canadian justice offers a bulk rate to murderers and rapists. One 25 year so-called life sentence is the penalty for premeditated murder no matter how many victims, and a mere seven years in prison is the maximum parole ineligibility for a rapist, again no matter how many victims.

But columnists advocating inmates' rights will argue that nothing is served by revenge, that we should have to prove that each predator is a continuing risk to society and not waste the lives of reformed carnivores.

It has become groupthink these days that we should be generous to murderers who only killed an abusive husband or smothered an infant child in a domestic dispute. My bill is not focused on these much pitied murderers. It deals only with multiple killers and rapists, criminals like Clifford Olson, people who plan, stalk and destroy young lives.

There are no mitigating circumstances for a predator. There is no need to rehabilitate a predator. No predator is a safe addition to any neighbourhood no matter what his therapist might say.

One of my constituents is a teacher in Brampton. One day some years ago the rehabilitation poster boy, Joseph Fredericks, was invited to his school, a shining example of a reformed sex offender. This devastating product of rehabilitation went on to attack and kill Christopher Stephenson.

By being convicted, serial predators have identified themselves as threats to society. No term in prison, no therapy, no treatment can make a predator an acceptable risk. Yet parole boards will continue to gamble with the lives of children and others by letting predators loose on the buffet of victims in Canadian communities.

Why is it that parole boards can take such risks so liberally? There is no risk to the parole board. For every 100 sex offenders released, 30 women and children are victimized. That is not just a stat. It is a guarantee. Parole does save a few dollars admittedly, but it ruins many lives.

The Metro Toronto Zoo is currently suffering budgetary difficulties. One might ask why it does not save money by emptying its cages and letting its untamed animals loose on the streets of Toronto. Why not? They are not the parole board and they can be sued for recklessly endangering citizens.

Prisons represent less than 1 per cent of federal spending. Protecting the public from predators would hardly bankrupt the nation. We can afford a little more justice.

Collette writes in support my bill:

This issue is very dear to me and my family. In 1991, four members of our family, Maurice, Susan, Islay and Janello Mandin were murdered by young offender Gavin Mandin. He was tried in adult court, and received a sentence of life with parole eligibility at ten years. One sentence, one parole eligibility.

Four lives erased, 10 years in prison. Oh, but wait. The murderer can change in prison. He can become a better citizen, get an education and even start a family through the conjugal visits of the jailhouse Jenny program. As always, resources are showered on the criminal, now called a client, but precious little is done to support the victimized families.

As with all other victims, and victims groups who support my bill, Collette Mandin-Kossowan asked to know the result of my vote.

But Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of Leslie Mahaffy, who died at the hands of Paul Bernardo, was more cautious, having had more experience with how justice can be obstructed, how justice is too rarely a votable item. She is used to the lip service, the feigned support, the photo ops and then the secret opposition that thwarts it all. Mrs. Mahaffy writes:

I fear there will be too much opposition because consecutive sentencing is so sensible, so no-nonsense, so uncomplicated, it may be too simple for some to understand.

I owe the groups that have supported this bill a reason for why it was thwarted by the subcommittee on Private Members' Business. The committee does not give reasons. It operates in secret, each member swearing silence except to the press when convenient. The transcripts of my presentation to the committee should lend some insight.

The committee offered not a single question about Bill C-274. They rendered no opposing comments, no objections, no rationale for the bill not being votable. At the time, I recalled the words of the Minister of Justice who said in the House that "too often, through insensitivity the interests and personal stake of the victim are overlooked".

How each of the four members of this committee voted is not a closely guarded secret. Only the public and the victims groups are denied the truth. They are used to that. Victims groups once again have reason to conclude that Parliament is not a trustworthy ally in their pursuit of justice.

Consecutive sentencing is uncomplicated. It would 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 rape and murder must not be marked down.

Under my bill, Denis Lortie would have had to serve 10 years for each life he took and Debbie Mahaffy would never have to plead with any parole board to keep Paul Bernardo in jail where he belongs.

As life sentences are a hoax, the only meaningful part of a sentence is the period of parole ineligibility, the period for which the murderer is guaranteed to be behind bars, the period before the victim's family must relive a nightmare. That is the only sentence that is remotely real, remotely believable.

For Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson that is 15 years. The rest of their sentences are just an option, an option our system allows to revictimize the parents of the victims, potentially to force them to join countless other victims in having to dredge up some gruesome memories just to provide victim impact statements and petitions to keep a cage between the predator and the prey.

However, the quality of mercy is not strained. Parliament still has an opportunity to narrow the gap between the justice system and justice. Does any member here stand in support of volume discounts for serial rapists and murderers? I would like those who think a second murder victim does not count to stand up and be counted. I would like to restore Mrs. Mahaffy's faith in this institution by asking for unanimous consent in the House to make Bill C-274 a votable motion.

[Space Program, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government has renewed its commitment to the Canadian space program by investing another $317 million this year. This commitment will continue the proud accomplishments of Canadian astronauts.

Marc Garneau will return to earth tomorrow from his second mission in space, having successfully reeled in the Spartan science satellite using the Canadarm, a creation of Spar Aerospace headquartered, of course, in my riding of Mississauga East.

Canadians have reason to be proud of their nation's achievements at the forefront of space exploration and especially proud of the encore performance of our first astronaut, Marc Garneau.

Thanks to Marc Garneau and his Canadarm, Canada is now famous even in space. Congratulations.