Debates of Feb. 22nd, 1995

Young Offenders Act

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend.

He made the comment that people who are in favour of stronger punishment for criminals and capital punishment are not clear thinking or are not thinking properly.

Does he realize that the majority of Canadians, including the majority of people in his own province, agree that we should have stronger sentences for criminals, that we should be tougher on criminals and tougher on crime, and that we should reinstate the death penalty in Canada?

Is the hon. member going to then stand up and say that the majority of people in his province cannot think properly? That is what he is implying with his statements.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not implying that by any means. I do not know which statistics the hon. member has looked at but in Quebec people are not crying out for more severe punishment. I do not believe that we are in agreement for the death penalty. We have progressed and realized that the right path is not the death penalty or severe penalties against criminals.

I think we have understood that. There are no statistics in Quebec indicating that that is what the majority of people in Quebec would want. It may be in the west, but certainly not in Quebec.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree almost completely with the comments made by the member of the Bloc Quebecois.

Bill C-37 contains provisions that emphasize rehabilitation. How can you rehabilitate a young offender who is still on the street with his group of friends and partners in crime? I still remember that, as a kid, it was not the school teacher's strap I was afraid of, it was the spanking waiting for me at home after my brothers told my father.

I remember when one of my brothers stole a 10-cent item from the store. When my father found out, he forced my brother to go back to the store to apologize and return the stolen item to the victim. This was followed by corporal punishment. I think it turned out well. My brother never had a problem with the law after that.

Throughout this debate, we have shown great concern for the criminals but very little concern for the victims. I know people who commit a crime in the fall so that they can spend the winter in prison because they eat better there than many street people.

I spoke about this with several police officers who must arrest these young offenders. Almost all of them say the same thing: Young criminals are laughing at us. We charge them with a crime and they say, "I do not care. It does not matter what you do because I will be back on the street tomorrow morning". They know they can go before a judge, who will slap them on the wrist and say, "Do not do that any more, little boy". That is why there are so many repeat offenders.

Again, I think our first concern should be to protect society. As they say, if you cannot do the time, do not do the crime. Young people must realize this.

The purpose of sentencing is not to punish young people but to act as a deterrent. If sentences are tough enough, they will have a deterrent effect and reduce crime.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is there. Studies have shown there is no deterrent effect. Increasing the sentence does not reduce the crime rate. Studies have confirmed this.

I agree that, when you are a kid and your father gives you the odd spanking, it might help. But when we are talking about putting people in prison, especially young people, in institutions that reinforce criminal behaviour, that is different. I agree we have to strike a balance, and I agree that some people will say that we are more concerned about the criminal than the victim.

Of course we have to be concerned about the victim, but it seems to me we should take a more progressive approach to the way we treat young offenders. And the way we do this reflects the values of our society. When we talk about young offenders, we are talking about a small number of people, but we need all kind of resources to help deal with what causes these young people to commit violent crimes.

The trouble is this bill imposes more severe sentences for young people who have committed a murder but, basically, the problem is the same as in the case of young people who commit suicide. There is something deeply wrong with society, and young people are saying this by their extreme actions.

So it is not by punishing young people who are victims of the system that we will solve the problem. We have to change the way society works. We have to make sure their father and mother have jobs and are not violent. As you know, a young person may be violent because his father and his mother are violent. That is why I say that in Quebec we will probably have

less trouble dealing with the real causes of these problems because we will consider all the other factors and not just-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sorry, but the period for questions and comments has expired.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-Dairy farmers; the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River-Justice.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to comment on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.

This bill was the subject of justice committee hearings from June 23 to December 8, 1994. During these hearings, victims groups, groups of offenders, witnesses from children's aid societies, as well as representatives from judges' groups, bar associations and school boards all made recommendations to the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of these individuals and groups for taking the time and effort to present their positions to the committee. I would also like to congratulate the members of the committee for their work on the bill during these hearings.

This bill is not perfect. No bill ever is. I believe that to understand the purpose of this bill one must first understand the purpose of the Young Offenders Act generally.

The Criminal Code of Canada sets out Parliament's goals and initiatives in the area of criminal sentencing for adult offenders. Conversely, we have enacted a separate statute, the Young Offenders Act, which legislates the sentencing process for young offenders. This is in recognition of the fact that young offenders often commit crimes for vastly different reasons than the motives behind adult crime.

The goals of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation are often achieved through different methods with young offenders than with adult criminals. The primary difference often recognized by experts is that many young offenders have a much better chance of being rehabilitated and becoming productive members of society than adult offenders. Tied in with this is the idea that for many young offenders the commission of a crime is an isolated incident in their lives, whereas for adult offenders, the commission of a crime more often signifies a larger pattern of lifestyle.

Unfortunately, events over the past few years in Canada have shown that not all young offenders fit the stereotypical mould of a young person who in committing a crime made an isolated mistake. Perhaps the most striking example of this was the tragic death of Nicholas Battersby last spring here in Ottawa. Mr. Battersby was shot in a drive-by shooting in broad daylight just blocks away from this House. Four young offenders were accused of this crime. I believe one of these youths has already pleaded guilty to this offence.

We also hear of swarmings in Toronto. This is the term for a phenomenon where a group of youths harass and beat a lone individual, sometimes simply for the clothes he or she is wearing.

These and other tragic stories show Canadians one thing: Some young offenders, long before they reach the age of 18, have become hardened criminals and the Young Offenders Act is simply inadequate to rehabilitate them or to protect Canadians from them.

We hear stories of youth who state that they commit crimes without any worry of being punished for their acts. We hear young Canadians openly saying that they would continue to commit crimes because the punishment available under the Young Offenders Act until the age of 18 simply does not scare them.

It is with this backdrop that the Minister of Justice has brought forth this legislation, Bill C-37. I would like to speak now on some specific measures in the bill.

The first measures contained in the bill are, in my opinion, the most important and fundamental amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The amendments proposed to paragraph 3(1) of the present act send a clear message to the judiciary who are responsible for enforcing the act. The protection of society is a primary objective of the Young Offenders Act. This preamble is most important.

Much of the time, the varying goals of the criminal law are in conflict. Some measures while they contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders may place the public safety at greater risk. I am here today to say that Parliament, the judiciary and other stakeholders in this debate must never forget that the safety of the public can never be compromised.

While some measures may be seen as contributing to the rehabilitation process, these benefits must be contrasted with any threat they present to the public safety. This is the fundamental struggle of any criminal justice system. Nowhere is the dilemma more prevalent than it is with the young offenders system.

While studies and common sense dictate that as a group young offenders are much more amenable to rehabilitation than adult offenders, we have learned the hard way that young offenders can also be serious threats to the public safety. The Young Offenders Act therefore must recognize the dual and conflicting role that it must play. The amendments proposed to paragraph 3(1)(a) send a strong message to the judiciary that Parliament

expects the judiciary to consider public safety and rehabilitation when considering the Young Offenders Act.

The other amendment which this bill proposes to paragraph 3(1) is to affirm that young persons must accept the responsibility for their actions and for their contraventions. Again, the whole purpose of the Young Offenders Act is to recognize that the young persons accept this responsibility in different ways than do adults. However, they still must accept responsibility for their actions and also the responsibility of rehabilitating themselves.

On the theme of protection of public safety, I would like to turn to the amendments proposed to section 16 of the Young Offenders Act. These amendments would provide that 16 and 17-year old offenders who commit murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter would be tried as adults unless the youth court orders that the youth be tried as a young offender. Under the present Young Offenders Act an offender can be tried in adult court, but only if the crown successfully petitions the youth court for such a transfer.

Presently, a young offender who is charged with any crime will automatically be tried in youth court unless the crown can convince a judge that circumstances merit otherwise. Under this bill a 16 or 17-year old charged with murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter will be automatically tried in an adult court unless a judge, on application, can be convinced otherwise.

I know I am repeating myself but it bears repeating. This is a very important step. Effectively, a reverse onus will lie with a young offender charged with these crimes to show a judge why he or she should not be tried in adult court.

The effect of these amendments will be to increase public safety while also recognizing that in certain cases an offender charged with these offences may be best dealt with under the Young Offenders Act.

This amendment is also consistent with the principle that young persons must accept responsibility for their actions. This amendment is of fundamental importance.

The present maximum sentence available under the act of five years for a 16 or 17-year old who commits murder is inadequate. As many of us know, some young people who have committed murder openly mock this sentence.

This amendment sends a message to all Canadians and to young offenders. That message is that while there may be valid reasons for giving a young offender a second chance, a young offender accused of these serious crimes must convince the court of these reasons.

These amendments therefore address the competing interests between public safety and rehabilitation, particularly when serious crimes such as murder are at issue.

In particular, I would like to bring the attention of the House to section 16(1.1)(b) which under clause 8(1) of Bill C-37 states that when considering whether a young offender should be tried as an adult or in youth court, the protection of the public will be paramount. If the judge is unable to reconcile this objective of public protection with other objectives, then the youth will be tried as an adult. This in my opinion is an ideal method of dealing with this dilemma of reconciling the protection of the public and other objectives of the criminal justice system.

Youth crime, like any other crime, demands a reasoned response to address all the goals of a criminal justice system such as general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation and public safety. However, when the other objectives conflict with the goal of public safety, public safety must take priority over other considerations.

I therefore support the amendment whereby 16 and 17-year old offenders must show the court why they should be tried in a youth court. In fact, it is unfortunate in my view that this amendment applies only to 16 and 17-year olds. It could easily have been expanded to all young offenders with consideration of the age of the offender becoming a key consideration which a judge would consider in determining whether or not an offender should be tried in youth court. Perhaps this could be something that might be addressed later in phase two of the study on the Young Offenders Act.

In conjunction with the amendments in Bill C-37 dealing with the transfer of 16 and 17-year olds accused of murder or attempted murder, the bill also raises the maximum penalty under the Young Offenders Act for first degree murder to 10 years from five years. In addition, the maximum penalty for anyone convicted of second degree murder will be raised from five to seven years. Again, these provisions in my opinion address the concern that we live in a society where a sentence of five years is not adequate in all cases to deter crime and to protect society, or to rehabilitate the young offender.

Bill C-37 will also provide for victims of youth crime to make impact statements at the sentencing of a young offender. Too often with our criminal justice system, victims complain that they are victimized twice, once by the crime and again during the court proceedings in relation to the crime. We hear stories of victims who are not even informed of when the offender will be sentenced. Victims complain that they have no input in the criminal proceedings.

While it is obvious that the judge in any case must be the final arbiter of a case, in order to adequately dispose of a case the judge must have the representations of all the affected parties before him or her. This includes representations from victims of crime detailing the impact the crime has had on their lives. Only with this input will judges truly be able to pass a sentence that fits the crime.

In closing, I would like to encourage all members of this House to support Bill C-37. I believe it provides amendments which recognize that the Young Offenders Act must obtain a balance of rehabilitation, public safety and deterrence. Unfortunately, in some cases the Young Offenders Act as it now stands does not adequately address the proper balancing of these interests.

This bill provides an excellent start on the process of reducing crime by youth by providing for measures that will take into consideration the issue of public safety. I encourage all members of this House to realize that any criminal justice system must have as its goal the balance of the objectives of public safety and rehabilitation. This is particularly true of any criminal system designed for young persons.

While it is true that young people are much more amenable as a whole to rehabilitation, the public must be adequately protected from all crime no matter who commits it. The amendments proposed to the Young Offenders Act as contained in Bill C-37 address the balancing of these objectives. This balance is lacking in the act as it now stands.

Finally, let me add my voice to others who have mentioned in this House that this bill does not represent the whole story of reducing crime by young persons. Most of the Young Offenders Act by definition deals with offences already committed. The other half of the equation of course is crime prevention.

In order for any initiative to reduce crime to be successful, the whole equation must be looked at. The 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice released in 1993 pointed this out. It identified that in order to reduce crime we must attack its roots such as unemployment, illiteracy, physical and sexual abuse of children, the glorification of violence, and dysfunctional families.

Studies have shown that crimes in neighbourhoods are drastically reduced when programs designed to keep youth occupied are instituted. Similarly, programs that attempt to help young Canadians get off the streets will also help prevent crime.

It is vital that the roots of crime be addressed in order that public safety is ensured. These steps in my opinion will be wise investments in the future of this country. Therefore I congratulate the Minister of Justice and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in taking the first steps in reforming the Young Offenders Act with Bill C-37.

I also encourage the government to continue its efforts to eradicate crime by taking the initiatives that aim at preventing crime before it is committed.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member finished off by congratulating the minister for taking the first steps. Perhaps we could say they are baby steps. Why not bring in a bill that would comprehensively deal with the problems of the Young Offenders Act?

At the beginning of her speech, the member talked about the importance of rehabilitation. The problem with youth crime is that many young offenders have never been habilitated in the first place. Society needs to respond to protect itself while respecting due process and offender needs.

Throughout her speech, the member recounted the problems very clearly, but does she believe that Bill C-37 will fix the problems identified? I think not.

She talked at length about the reverse onus provision and the whole procedure of transfers especially for 16 and 17-year olds. Perhaps she might address herself to the mind that it is basically an admission that the Young Offenders Act is fundamentally flawed for 16 and 17-year olds.

This brings up the topic that if we have to spend so much time dealing with the special problems for 16 and 17-year olds then the act is fundamentally flawed. Really it deals with the wrong set of kids and 16 and 17-year olds should be dealt with in adult court.

The member repeatedly cited the problems and the dilemmas but then made that unreasonable leap of faith that Bill C-37 is appropriate in responding to the problems that she cites.

However, I was encouraged that the member acknowledged the notion of victims in the process. I would ask her, would she then advocate or be willing to support the giving of legal standing to victims in the young offender court?

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. As I stated at the beginning of my comments, this bill is not perfect. It is a first step toward revamping the present act.

To speak to the comment he made on the victims of crime, as we go along with this bill and the amendments that will come subsequent to this process, these facts will be dealt with in time. It is certainly a problem and one I am sure the committee will be looking at in the future.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his latest report the Auditor General took what I consider to be a major step forward in discharging the duties of his office.

In addition to the traditional accounts of waste and questionable accounting practices, this time around he pointed out that a major cause of wasted money-and in my view this is the major cause-is not overpaid civil servants, the redecorating of offices, or the wasting of staples and paper clips. The problem the Auditor General focused on this time around is that we spend billions of dollars a year on programs without ever saying what the programs are intended to achieve, or how we measure their success in achieving their goals.

It is not hard to think of a government program to which this criticism applies. Actually it is hard to think of one that it does not apply to. We have social programs that hurt society. We have family programs that destroy families. We have aboriginal programs that keep Canada's Indians from ever achieving self-sufficiency. We have trade programs that discourage free trade. We have expenditure control legislation that allows spending to spiral out of control, and so on. It is not a pretty sight.

Every time one of these programs fails, the solution is to spend more money. We never ask what we are trying to do, how we will know whether or not we have achieved it, and when we will shut the program down if we do not see some success.

Getting to the Young Offenders Act, what is it supposed to be doing? Is it doing it? How can we tell? If it is not, at what point do we change our approach?

The purpose of the Young Offenders Act is quite clear. It is intended to draw a distinction between hardened adult offenders on the one hand and juveniles on the other. Then it is intended to separate the hardened juvenile offender from the kid who got in with the wrong crowd and made a foolish mistake. Most of us would agree that the kid who made a foolish mistake and that kid alone deserves a second chance.

I am sure many members are thinking: "Come off it, Mike. In this country we do not hold hardened adult criminals responsible either", and this is sadly true. It is difficult to pick up a newspaper today without seeing some dreadful tale of an innocent person abused or slaughtered by someone who ought still to be in prison serving out their sentence. Perhaps our governments do not take crime seriously even by adults, but the public wants them to and the Liberals ignore that desire at their grave peril.

Last time the Liberals formed the government the public got so sick of their arrogance that it reduced them to some 40 seats in Parliament in the 1984 election. Let me serve notice here and now that if the Prime Minister and the cabinet ignore public feelings about crime, that will be the good old days for the Liberal Party.

If the Liberals hope to avoid such a debacle, there are so many things they are doing that they had better not. They had better not raise taxes for one thing. They had better not keep spending more money than they take in for another. They had better apply the Auditor General's critique to their entire crime policy. Is crime being deterred? How do we measure it? If it is not, how do we change the law so that it is?

To help the Liberals in this unfamiliar exercise of considering whether what they are doing is actually working, I would like to start by applying the Auditor General's criteria to the Young Offenders Act and to these amendments to it.

The Young Offenders Act is supposed to give a second chance to those who deserve it. Is that what it is doing? Or is it just giving a licence to those under 18 to commit crimes? How can we tell? It seems quite simple to me.

If the Young Offenders Act is working, those youths who are given light sentences, who have their records sealed when they reach the age of majority, who receive no punishment at all for their misdeeds, should subsequently turn out to be better citizens than those who are selected for more severe punishment. Young people who get into trouble with the law should be less inclined to continue their criminal careers into adulthood than before there was the Young Offenders Act.

In short, if the Young Offenders Act is working, we would either have no more youth crime than we had in the past or perhaps a little bit more but a much lower rate of juvenile delinquents going on to become adult criminals. If not, if youth crime is skyrocketing and young offenders who receive a light slap on the wrist for serious acts like robbery, assault, even rape and murder go on to commit serious crimes as adults, then the Young Offenders Act is failing.

To me, the scariest possibility would be that the young thugs are manifesting an increasingly obvious awareness that they are beyond the reach of the law because of the Young Offenders Act, that they are responding rationally to the incentives government has built into its policies. That would be easy to measure too. Just look to see when the Young Offenders Act came into force and then after a few years delay when teenagers came to understand these provisions youth crime skyrocketed.

I wonder whether the government bothers to keep statistics on these questions and if it does, whether it will release them. I wonder whether we had less youth crime before the Young Offenders Act or more. I wonder what proportion of those who receive lenient sentences or have their records sealed when they turn 18 go on to commit more serious crimes as opposed to those who used to receive a stiff punishment for an evil act.

I am submitting these as Order Paper questions because as Canadians we have a right to know what is going on. That includes knowing whether the Minister of Justice knows or cares whether the Young Offenders Act is working. If it turns out that when measured adequately against clear criteria the Young Offenders Act is the failure it seems to be, then I wonder something else. I wonder what the government's priorities are.

Does the Minister of Justice think that his primary and overwhelming responsibility is protecting the lives, liberties and property of Canadian citizens and does he measure each of his initiatives against that criterion? Or is he busy trying to turn us all into socially aware, personally tolerant, cappuccino drinking, fluently trilingual citizens of the global village of the 21st century? Is he too caught up in his social engineering to protect society as it now exists?

Some will doubtless believe I am being unfair to the minister. Some will doubtless maintain that the justice minister knows exactly what the Young Offenders Act and these amendments to it are supposed to achieve. And he knows exactly how to measure success.

The Young Offenders Act, some will tell me, is part of a grand social engineering project of this and previous Liberal governments. It is the abolition of personal responsibility. These people will further tell me that the Minister of Justice knows exactly what the amendments are intended to achieve. They are intended to deceive the bumpkins out in the hinterland into thinking that crime is being punished and innocence rewarded so that the project of relieving us all of responsibility can proceed unmolested.

These people will tell me that the justice minister has very clear ideas how to measure his success on this project. They will say that if the justice minister can get the polls to say Canadians think he is cracking down on youth crime, he will not actually have to hold murderous young thugs accountable for their acts of evil. I do not think so.

I prefer to be charitable and assume that the justice minister and the Liberals are so convinced of their divine right to rule over Canadians and reshape them for their own good that they do not bother asking themselves whether what they are doing is working.

That is why I have risen in the Chamber today, to tell the justice minister as clearly and forcefully as I can that when his party was elected on the promise of a better yesterday, voters had in mind a time when jobs were more secure, the national debt was far lower and the streets were a lot safer. That is what they want to come back, not to the crazy experiments and wild excesses of the Trudeau years.

I hope the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the entire government understand that Canadians really do believe and cherish individual responsibility. They overwhelmingly favour the right to own property. They overwhelmingly favour politicians who listen to their constituents. They overwhelmingly favour the right of law-abiding citizens to live in freedom and in security. And they overwhelmingly favour tougher action against crime and criminals of whatever age.

I call on the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the government to take back this legislation and to repudiate the entire approach behind it. I call on them to recognize that the most primary duty of a government is to protect the lives, liberty and property of its citizens from force and fraud.

I call on them to develop and make public a set of standards for measuring the success or failure of the Young Offenders Act against this goal. And I call on them to amend it so that it works or abolish it if it cannot be made to work.

Enough of softness on crime. Enough coddling. Enough punishing the innocent and pardoning the guilty. Either they do it now or the Reform government does it after 1997 while they collect their undeserved pensions and write their wistful memoirs.

That would be simple justice. Simple justice is what the Canadian public wants and simple justice is what the Reform Party is going to give them.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member. He acknowledges how much we are doing positively and how many millions we are spending within the juvenile justice system to respond to juvenile crime. Sometimes we do not hear about that but a lot of wonderful things are being done and great effort is made throughout the country within the juvenile justice system. It is not a matter of either or, but a great amount of resources are being spent.

He makes the point that we must always evaluate our social programs for what is actually delivered. It is a point that must not be forgotten, and he mentions the role of the Auditor General in that.

The member reflects the experience of the community and how the message has been sent by the operations of the Young Offenders Act. He points out that we have had the Young Offenders Act for 10 years, and if it was working properly it would have acquired the acceptance of the community. The opposite is true. The community's experience with the act has resulted in the act's repudiation and a lack of confidence that it would have earned if it was working properly.

The member also pointed out the fact that the Young Offenders Act represents a Liberal social philosophy that is really not reflective of mainstream Canadian values. He talked about the issue of community accountability. The final measure of what should be done with the Young Offenders Act is, what does the public want?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and I would reiterate what I said in my intervention. We have to measure the success of our programs against clear criteria. We have to evaluate whether or not the legislation that is in effect right now or legislation that is brought into the House is actually working.

The Auditor General said in his report that so many of the things the government does, fails. It fails the test of accountability. It does not achieve the lofty goals that it sets out to achieve. The Young Offenders Act is another example of that very deep malaise that sits in our federal government and has for a long time.

The programs that are brought into the House or that are on the books right now have to be evaluated in clear terms. It has to be demonstrated they actually work and that Canadians are satisfied with them.

Clearly Canadians from coast to coast are not satisfied with the Young Offenders Act and they will not be satisfied with the amendments as proposed.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill, this afternoon.

We are attempting to reconcile two views; one which looks at what one would refer to as tough treatment, incarceration, dealing with young people who create situations that are unacceptable to society in a very direct and sometimes I would suggest almost brutal kind of way.

On the other hand, another group of people somehow believe that if you do not look at youth crime, and if you are patient and understanding and soft, that it will go away. Surely the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Surely there is a balance to be struck.

This is what the bill is all about. It attempts to reconcile two views. It attempts to establish a correct balance, and that correct balance would obviously vary according to the values that an individual holds.

We are asked to define what is a fair response. What is a just response? What is a correct response to a crime situation when it is undertaken by a young man or woman? That is extremely difficult. I do not pretend to have all of the answers and it would be presumptuous of me to suggest that I do.

I want to share some ideas in the spirit of debate to try to address a very serious situation. I do not believe that you can wish it away and it is simply going to disappear. I do not believe that incarceration and rough treatment is the answer either.

The government has to manage. It has to protect society. At the same time, simply putting people away does not solve the problem. It does not even come close to solving the problem.

One can look at rough treatment or direct treatment or incarceration. A lot of people would say, "not pandering to those criminals". Do they look at the success rate of reacting that way? What happens when we put people away? What are the costs when people are put away? We do not talk about that. There are costs. It costs a lot of money to detain people today. Obviously it has to be done because society has to be protected in certain circumstances. As a solution it is not only costly but I think it is extremely dysfunctional.

Look at the people who are put away. Since they are young people many of them are eventually released. Once they are released how many go on to integrate into society and lead productive lives? What is the success rate of that kind of approach?

Pretending that no problems exist will not resolve anything. We have to acknowledge that there are difficulties in society that are caused by real reasons. The real challenge to us as parliamentarians, as members of Canadian society, is to find out why it is that people commit crimes.

Some people suggest there are good and bad people. That is too simplistic. There are people who along the way, for a variety of reasons that we do not always understand nearly as well as we should, commit criminal behaviour that is totally unacceptable to society. That is where the challenge lies. If we could understand that, we could respond. In responding to that we could cut down the amount of crime in society. It would be much less costly, much less dysfunctional and a much more humane and satisfying kind of way of dealing with our fellow human being whether he or she is or is not a criminal.

We are trying to strike a balance between those who feel that imprisonment is the solution and those who feel that patience and education will eventually bring an end to this type of violence, abuse and criminal behaviour.

The bill includes a number of serious measures. I am not disappointed when I hear people suggest other or additional measures. That does not bother me. What does bother me is when the efforts of a very prominent Canadian are belittled, a justice minister who knows a lot about the law and criminal behaviour and who has taken the time to consult widely. Then we pose as supposed experts and simply belittle that which he has produced. That is arrogance.

Mr. Speaker, I know you would agree with me that when members on the opposite side suggest that members of our party are arrogant, there is no greater arrogance than pretending that one is an expert, that one has all of the solutions to all of the complex problems of society when one in fact does not. They come forward with simple, glib, catchy little solutions that pretend to resolve, so they can go away and suggest they are really listening to people and applying those solutions, and they

are going to correct the ills of society, that is arrogance. That is the most profound arrogance that one can find.

Unfortunately we find it a great deal in some members of the House. Some of them are raising their hands. I wish the camera could catch them right now so their electors could see firsthand who they are. Unfortunately that is not possible. Perhaps they will have the courage to get up and ask question, so we can have a bit of a debate. I can say a few more things to them then.

The bill includes increased sentences. Has anyone talked about that? It includes going to adult court in certain circumstances, when the crime is sufficiently serious to warrant that kind of situation. It includes extending the time served before being considered for parole. Has anyone from the opposite side mentioned that? It includes a better sharing of information among those people who deal with youth and criminal behaviour by young people.

It also includes rehabilitation and treatment. That underlies the whole notion here. We want to rehabilitate. We want to be able to treat. We want to keep young people out of penal institutions. It is costly. It is dysfunctional. It does not do them any good as human beings. It protects society and, as I mentioned before, when protection is needed that is clearly what we would do.

The legislation includes the possibility of victim impact statements when sentencing, something that is now used in adult situations only. It talks about conditional supervision which is rare in a number of circumstances today but which is extended.

It talks about medical and psychological assessments. We no longer need to get consent. We can ask for those assessments to assist us in making better, more sensitive judgments that will be practical and address the real problems. A very important point is the possibility of restitution to the victims of crime. It has many components the opposite side has not addressed.

The major challenge to us today is twofold. It is to look at the legislation not in a partisan way but in the spirit of openness to see what merits support and what can be improved. Surely members on the opposite side see some positive features in the legislation. They can bring about suggestions that may lead to improvements. That is one of the challenges.

Another challenge before us today is to try to understand better than we do why it is these young people turn to criminal behaviour. If we could understand that we could prevent crime. Preventing crime would ensure that there is less incarceration, less cost to society and more productive lives being lived by young people.

I believe I am reaching the end of my speech. I will stop here, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues across the floor.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are listening on this side of the House. Hopefully our constituents are listening at home as well.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments about Bill C-37, the reforms to the Young Offenders Act. He said that if we had any suggestions he would welcome them and that we should bring them forward to the government. We have been trying to do that at every opportunity in the debate on the Young Offenders Act and the specific bill.

It is high time young people who commit violent repeat offences are held accountable. We talk about that often. We should quit blaming society, family or peer pressure for their crimes; they have to be held accountable.

I wrote down from the hon. member's speech that he does not believe incarceration and rough treatment are the answer. Some people would differ when it comes to repeat offenders and offenders who commit horrendous violent crimes.

I would like to refer to a newspaper article and ask the hon. member if he would agree with this type of treatment and indicate whether it has some potential in Canada. I refer to an article about the Toulson Boot Camp in Maryland, U.S.A., which states:

Offenders between the ages of 17 and 25, sentenced to five years or less, can sign up for the six-month boot camp program at Toulson. And then you're home-free on parole.

The program at Toulson is modelled on the U.S. Marines' boot camps and about half the instructors are former marines. It emphasizes discipline and accountability.

So lifting a log isn't about lifting a log. It's about teamwork and overcoming adversity.

And moving a rock pile isn't just moving rocks. It's about being responsible for your actions and putting effort into work.

Toulson is a little different than other American boot camps, however.

That's because, in addition to the strict military regime and physical training, inmates also get job training, schooling (more than 70 per cent receive their high school equivalency diploma before they leave) and strictly supervised probation.

Boot camps without such measures find 50 to 70 per cent of their ex-cons end up back in the clink-the same rate as for conventional U.S. prisons where inmates can do whatever they want all day.

According to statistics compiled by Toulson officials, only 20 per cent of inmates released from the boot camp have reoffended.

In light of those statistics-he has asked for suggestions-would that perhaps be something that Canada should be looking at to put some of the violent repeat offenders into a structure such as that one and hopefully we would have a better success rate than we have had in our rehabilitation programs of the past?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased by the question and I shall attempt to answer it in a responsible way.

Initially there was a comment from the member's party indicating that my party was prone to attempting all kinds of programs without appropriate evaluations. Then this hon. member puts forth the suggestion of a boot camp in his question, a particular boot camp where supposedly there has been some success.

I would caution in taking one example only and extrapolating it to the whole of youth crime or the whole of Canada. Whether one calls it boot camp or an alternative way of serving a sentence or being socialized differently, certainly we can look at it and we should. I know this is happening in certain parts of Canada.

I deplore, and my colleague did not suggest it, when some members indicate that boot camps sound tough. It sounds as if we are doing something when we are not doing anything except for symbolic reasons. I think that is hypocritical. I stress again that my colleague did not suggest that was the reason, but in some cases it is hypocritical, political and has no intent but trying to respond to a group of people out there that believes it is the answer to all youth crime.

Another point I want to make is a very important one. I take issue with my colleague in this regard, at least slightly. I did not say that incarceration was not the answer. I say that incarceration needed to be the answer in certain cases to protect society. He can check the blues. I did say that.

I hope my colleagues will listen very carefully but I wanted to make a point-and I am delighted to be able to make it again because it is an important one-for those who suggest that we should simply put people into an institution and throw away the key. There are some people who suggest that because they do not know any better. They do not understand the situation. They keep hoping for simplistic solutions. I simply suggest to them that approach to incarceration, with that kind of motivation, is not the answer.

We have a greater responsibility toward our fellow human beings, whether or not we like them, whether or not they are offenders, and that is to try to find out what we can do in a responsible way to ensure that they are contributing members of Canadian society.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-37 as it addresses an area of concern to me and certainly a matter of concern to my constituents.

The Minister of Justice has responded quite quickly to public concern about problems with the Young Offenders Act through the amendments he is proposing in Bill C-37. As the government has been doing with other important pieces of legislation, the public has been consulted widely on possible changes and improvements both before the bill was drafted and tabled in the House and subsequently in committee.

These amendments therefore are the reflection of wide public consultations and intended to respond to wide public concerns. That does not mean they will please everyone. Indeed critics have argued that they are either too harsh or too lenient. That usually means they are just about right.

The Young Offenders Act has had two purposes since its inception. One is the protection of society. The other is to interrupt the beginning of a criminal career and try our best to rehabilitate young offenders so that they do not become lifelong, hardened criminals.

In response to public concern the minister has amended the declaration of the principle of the act to make it clear that the primary objective of the youth system, however, must be the protection of society.

This can only be achieved if we have a real commitment as well to rehabilitation and to crime prevention. This means that for chronic serious offenders, judges are clearly authorized in the bill to have proper psychological or medical evaluations done.

It would be a tragedy, for instance, if young persons who might otherwise be entirely treatable, correctable and able to be put on a better path of life through medical or therapeutic help were simply to be punished and then released into society possibly to commit increasingly serious crimes as they become adults and lifelong criminals as they mature.

Increasing the sentences for first degree murder to a maximum of ten years and for second degree murder to seven years is something that I think has a great deal of public support. In making these sentencing changes the minister is addressing the need for sentencing for violent crimes that matches both the public's perception of the seriousness of the crime as well as the need to hold young offenders accountable for the damage their crimes have caused.

I do not mean only greater punishment but, again combining the two purposes of the bill, also more reasonable time for rehabilitation and counselling. Our party in opposition argued for these longer sentences simply because we knew there were

some young offenders, even those who committed violent crimes, who could be rehabilitated. It cannot necessarily be done in the five years that the act currently allows.

As well by transferring 16 and 17-year olds to adult court when they have been charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault, we are sending a message to violent offenders that they will be held accountable regardless of their age.

There is still the ability nevertheless for young persons to apply to have their cases remain in youth court if the objectives of protection of the public and rehabilitation can better be met there. The onus is on young offenders to prove that exceptional treatment rather than adult court is merited in their case.

We can see that the amendments are improvements of the current system that allow for flexibility only in exceptional cases. They will also allow police officers, school officials and welfare agencies to share information on young offenders for the better protection of public safety. It says to our communities that while the interest of young offenders must be taken into account there are other important interests and concerns.

For youth who have committed less serious crimes, alternatives to custody should be considered as the bill would allow. I return to the second purpose of the Young Offenders Act which is to ensure, wherever possible, that young offenders are given the opportunity to develop a better way of life and not continue with a life of crime.

Let us turn to fitting the punishment to the crime. The bill allows for the kinds of alternatives to custody as a method of restitution for the victim, or some type of community service that may be far more productive than the more traditional approaches of incarceration.

These amendments as presented in Bill C-37 are not perfect solutions, nor are they the end of the process. They are improvements. They show Canadians that the government is serious about protecting their personal safety and their property. At the same time they offer the opportunity for rehabilitation where possible and feasible and for crime prevention.

Moreover, as the House is aware, the minister has asked the parliamentary committee of justice to undertake a thorough review of the Young Offenders Act. We realize that this is just a first step. This will provide the forum for additional changes and improvements to meet both purposes of the act, the protection of public safety and the rehabilitation wherever possible of young offenders.

These are issues that need to be addressed. We need to know why some of our young people are falling into criminal ways. We do need to examine the relationship between youth services and the Young Offenders Act.

A very recent study has indicated that a violent child of six will become a violent adolescent and a violent adult. Right now we do not have services in our country or in our communities that are nearly adequate to turn that young child's life around at the age of six rather than waiting until the age of 16 when they are damaging themselves and others in a far more serious way.

We need to understand how the government can attack some of the underlying causes of crime such as poverty, family violence and drug abuse. Members opposite may not want to acknowledge that sometimes somebody else is responsible for the criminal behaviour of the young person. In may cases, far more than they would like to know about, criminal behaviour is very directly linked to sexual abuse as a child. Much as they would like to simply put the burden of proof on that 12, 13 or 14-year old young person, we as a society have to take some responsibility for those among that population who were abused in a society that failed to protect them.

The members opposite mentioned certain ways of dealing with young offenders. I think we have to be more open and that is why a more fundamental review can look at other methods of treating young offenders while they are in custody or under supervision of some kind. It is only by addressing these more fundamental issues that we will make real strides in keeping our youth out of the justice system and turning their lives around where possible when they come into conflict with the law.

We need to look at every possible investment toward keeping our society a healthy place for children to grow up so that future generations are not looking on our youth as a problem, a source of violence and a source of fear to our citizens and to our society.

As I said, this is the first step in that process. It is not the end of the process. I look forward to the Reform Party supporting the progress that is being made in this bill and participating fully in the ongoing debate about further improvements.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose one concern of the Reform Party that I think has been fairly well expressed is the lack of success that the current YOA has had.

I wonder if the member could enlighten me on some things, for example the fact that 47 per cent of all cases where charges are made under the Young Offenders Act are for repeat offences; 19 per cent of all those charges are for the fifth offence under the Young Offenders Act.

In her judgment, what in the amendments is going to actually change that? What in the amendments is really going to work to

the resolution of that problem or do these amendments not touch the reality of the repeat offences?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how those statistics compare with adult crime. However, what the member has just said is that 53 per cent of charges against young offenders are laid against first time offenders. They have never offended before. The fact that only 20 per cent have then gone on to offend more than twice is a fairly good indication to me that there is a reasonably high level of rehabilitation because of the act and the effect it has had since it was first implemented.

However, in the cases for which there is the greatest public concern, the kind of amendments that I think are going to make a substantial difference is for severe and violent crime, murder, assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault and so on, and the requirement to have the young person tried in adult court according to adult rules, the possibility of longer sentences, up to double what they are now.

I also feel that oftentimes when we do incarcerate young people we put them into a school of crime. We put them into contact with people who have been in the system perhaps more than once or twice, who are much more knowledgeable about crime and living off the avails or crime. That I do not think is a desirable situation.

I certainly believe in the requirement to look at non-custodial solutions, especially where the young person is being held directly accountable through compensation to the victim directly for the harm they have done or through community service to compensate the community directly for the harm that he or she has done to the community. Those are the kinds of measures, among others, that put a direct link between the crime that has been committed and the effects of that crime. To me that kind of discipline is a productive kind of discipline.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This concludes the period of questions and comments and also concludes this stage of debate. As we continue third reading of this legislation, members will now have a maximum of 10-minute interventions without questions or comments.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since June 2, 1994, when Bill C-37 to amend the Young Offenders Act was tabled, I have been unable to convince myself that the federal government is seriously trying to make those of us in Parliament and the people in Quebec and the rest of Canada believe that its proposed reform will increase public protection.

As you know, I have more than 21 years' experience in teaching and have learned to trust. I have learned that, in life, you have to offer a second chance. I learned this during all those years. The debate, this debate, is simply a public relations exercise by the government in an effort to reassure part of the population about its public institutions.

The reality is that the existing legislation contains all the provisions needed by the courts and crown prosecutors to give society proper protection. The problem is one of enforcing the provisions in the Young Offenders Act, and not a complete revision of it. In my view, changing the commas and periods in a text will not make it suddenly more effective.

Did the Minister of Justice first make sure that the existing Young Offenders Act no longer met the needs of the public and society before changing it? Did the Minister of Justice first take into account the many recommendations by the principal stakeholders?

Considering that most authorities concerned want more latitude in enforcing the current legislation, and not a repressive and intimidating reform of the act, why is the Liberal government nevertheless going ahead with its crusade against young people?

We can only wonder why the federal government made this one of its key issues. The Liberals' red book holds the key. In fact, the Minister of Justice is using his role in the government merely to keep a purely partisan campaign promise, without regard for its economic, social and moral impact.

It is these kinds of actions which, in my opinion, cause taxpayers to become disillusioned with politics. Such displays of disregard for institutions and the duty of the elected is revolting to the taxpayers of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Furthermore, I do not believe that an act should be amended just because 30 per cent of the population believes that crime is on the rise and that offences are becoming more violent, especially when current statistics prove the opposite. How many times will we have to say it? We will never resolve the problem of violence in society by sending people to jail earlier and earlier on in life.

Longer and heavier sentences, lowering the minimum age for assuming criminal responsibility and extending measures available to repress young people will not resolve the problem either-they will have the opposite effect. The proposed amendments to the bill counter the ultimate goal: protection of society and of young people.

During the last election campaign, I had the privilege-and I mean privilege-of visiting a halfway house, where some 20 young men lived. I spoke with them for over an hour about their future and I left the place firmly believing that they deserved a second chance, even though they had committed reprehensible acts.

I think that the government should concentrate on crime prevention programs. That is where emphasis should be put, and

these programs are our greatest challenge. That is the approach that Quebec is taking, with great success I might add.

In consequence, the bill's main objective should be reintegration. A long term crime prevention program, with the aim of deterring young offenders from continuing to act in a reprehensible way, is what is really needed.

On this issue, Quebec is sending a clear message to Ottawa: "Let us continue to resolve our problems in the way we see fit without imposing rules to follow or amendments that may satisfy other provinces, but do not fit Quebec's experience at all". This is another area where I think Quebec is distinct.

Quebec has a rich experience. Those looking for inspiration need look no further than Quebec's Youth Protection Act. In addition, the work and reports of Quebec's Department of Health and Social Services are also good sources of information. Finally, studies have been conducted recently in Quebec. These studies, the tailor made protection, the jointly devised plan, and the protection of young persons, more than legislation, bring out the valuable experience and background of the Quebec system, as well as a number of problems to be resolved to ensure more effective enforcement of the act.

In Quebec, there is a well established consensus. The consensus in Quebec is that the principles and rights accorded to the child under Quebec legislation must be preserved, while at the same time stipulating the means of implementation and the adjustments required by social change and recent legislative reforms.

In regard to young offenders, Quebec's perspective and experience are diametrically opposed to the reforms proposed by the federal government. Quebec stresses rehabilitation while the federal government's proposals are repressive and hard-line. In other words, Quebec does not regard life terms with repeat offenders as a solution for young persons who are often grappling with serious family and social problems.

In conclusion, to ease matters the Minister of Justice could grant Quebec special status to allow us to preserve this credible experience in regard to protecting young persons and this moral and social duty towards young Quebecers.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on these amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Like most communities, Guelph-Wellington is concerned about crime and the safety of our community. Its people welcome any initiative that encourages public protection and crime prevention.

Young offenders are not new. The House of Commons enacted the Juvenile Delinquents Act in 1908. The government of the day believed that youth were not to be treated as criminals. Rather, the act stated that they should be treated as misdirected children in need of aid, encouragement, help and assistance. It sought to save children through social intervention. Almost 90 years later we are still concerned with giving children aid, encouragement and assistance.

My community of Guelph-Wellington knows the importance of children. We pride ourselves in providing quality education and preparing our children for their future. Our industry is one of the finest in the country, built to withstand radical changes in the marketplace and designed to be the forefront of technology so our children can remain in our community and become active participants in our society.

They are concerned about deficit reduction, not for their sake, but so their children and grandchildren will not be burdened by our excesses. Like almost every community in Canada, we are concerned about youth crime. We know the majority of our children are good and live their lives free of crime.

However, others do demand our attention. We are concerned about them. Programs like Guelph Change Now, a crisis and counselling service for youth, and START from the Second Chance Employment Counselling, aim to help young people, some young offenders, in housing and life skills.

My community knows the causes of youth crime are many. It wants this government here and now to deal with the issues of family violence, poverty and illiteracy. It also wants us to respond now to its dissatisfaction with the current treatment of violent young offenders.

Last June 16, I attended a community forum sponsored by the Guelph Mercury. The forum dealt with the Young Offenders Act. During the discussion it became apparent that Guelph-Wellington residents are concerned with the prevention of crime. They want more respect for the law by putting emphasis on the home, in the schools and on preventing young people from becoming criminals. They also want more money spent on rehabilitation. This was a clear message I received.

Following the forum I wrote to the Minister of Justice and informed him that these people do not see the problem with legislation. Rather, they see the problem in the court room. They look at the courts as too lenient and so much so that our young people are no longer deterred by the sentencing. They ask me in this government to make sentencing tougher so that young people will realize that their actions will be punished.

This legislation today responds to their concerns. My constituents have asked us to increase sentences for teenagers convicted of first and second degree murder. They believe that five years is not enough.

They want more young offenders tried in adult court when charged with serious personal injury offences and they want improved measures for information sharing between professionals. They know that it is often too easy for a young offender to fit between the cracks because school officials, police and child welfare agencies sometimes do not share information when the public may be at risk.

At that forum and in letters and telephone calls I received from constituents, they recognize the need for rehabilitation services. They contact me seeking ways to improve the judicial system and I have heard from parents whose children disregard their authority because they believe that they can safely hide behind provisions of the Young Offenders Act. This is not right.

These children may lose respect for authority because they believe that our system is too lenient. Mothers worry that their children from a very early age have learned not to respect the law. These parents and in many ways their children have asked us to respond. It is a clear call for help.

Guelph-Wellington residents want stiffer penalties for young offenders who commit serious crimes. They want victims to be able to make a statement if they so wish about how crime has affected them and they want stricter controls over the young offender who is in the community while serving probation and a quicker response if a youth should break the conditions of that release.

They want the courts to have as much information as possible when a young offender is sentenced. Currently young offenders must consent to treatment. This legislation responds to my constituents' concern for an effective response to chronic and serious young offenders.

I have said before that my constituents demand excellence in many of my speeches. They want legislation passed by the House that effectively deals with their concerns and improves the quality of life for them and their families.

This bill betters the Young Offenders Act and enables it to deal more effectively with serious youth crime. The changes proposed in this legislation help further protect our community where you and I live. Their aim is to make young people more responsible for their actions while recognizing the special circumstances of their youth.

They respond to the concerns of people in Guelph-Wellington and elsewhere in order to make our community better. Sergeant Brent Eden of the young offenders branch of the Guelph police force described to the people who attended the forum on the Young Offenders Act as concerned with making things better, not just blaming the system, not just blaming the police and not just blaming the government.

These people know that this legislation will make things better. They have told me that the police support this legislation. That is what they want from this government, that it is what they demand from this government.

These amendments continue our goals of offering aid, encouragement, help and assistance to our children. The goals are simple. Punish those who commit the crime and help rehabilitate these young people so that they can contribute to our society.

We want tough legislation which gives a clear message. We will not tolerate murder, assault and other criminal acts. We want to help our young people but we will not accept certain behaviour. This behaviour will be punished.

During the last federal election I promised the people of Guelph-Wellington that I would support reforms to the Young Offenders Act. It was asked many times of me. They want things to deter young people from committing crime, something to provide real justice and to rehabilitate our young people to help them build better lives. This legislation and the broad review which will be taken by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs does just that.

These deserve our support. These respond to the concerns expressed by my constituents and people across Canada.

In its own platform, the Reform Party promised Canadians adequate punishment for young offenders. I look forward to its support for this bill because it keeps that promise as well.

The majority of our young people know that hard work and education will be the key for their success. They want to contribute to making our country better and to be a part of the Canadian dream. They want children of their own.

For their sake and for ours, I will support Bill C-37 and call on this House to vote in favour of this bill; legislation that aids, helps, assists and encourages our children and our future.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It now being 5.55 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Atlantic Canada

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of providing a fairer future for Atlantic Canada by adopting policies and programs to create jobs through initiative funds for co-operatives, encouraging small business, upgrading municipal infrastructures and diversifying single industry communities.

Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the member for Moncton for seconding my motion. Basically, as the motion indicates, I am calling on the government to consider the advisability of providing a fairer future for Atlantic Canada by adopting policies and programs to create jobs through initiative funds for co-operatives, encouraging small business, upgrading municipal infrastructures and diversifying single industry communities.

Basically this motion is broad enough to include a major reassessment of government policy toward Atlantic Canada, a reassessment of whether those policies have been successful and an opportunity to consider maybe doing things in a rather different way.

What I will do is not spend too much time on the problems but put forward some ideas for solutions. I will draw upon the recent experience in Saskatchewan and British Columbia with regard to mechanisms for bringing together diverse groups in our society with the aim of building a vision for the future to which we can all be committed and to which we can then direct government policy and regulation.

Atlantic Canada has long been a region dependent on its natural resources and on the involvement of the public sector. Both have been allowed to decline as government policies and private sector decisions have conspired to create an environment that undermines long term development and sustainability of many of the communities and economies of the region.

The economic and political policies of the past that have resulted in the underdevelopment of the Atlantic region must be challenged and overcome. Policies that have promoted the export of unprocessed and semi-processed resources along with jobs that otherwise might be involved in that value added activity must be replaced with value added production and the skilled jobs that accompany those processes.

This will require the federal and provincial governments to be much more involved with the local communities in reaching this goal. Also we have to be cognizant of the impact of federal cutbacks over the last decade to the support structure of both rural and urban life in Atlantic Canada and be prepared to respond to those extra difficulties.

The future course of economic development must begin with the involvement of people in their communities working with their governments. This will require a new partnership with the federal government, the people, the communities and institutions; a partnership unlike any relationship that currently exists in Atlantic Canada.

In order to make that relationship work we must commit ourselves to some real and achievable goals. It should not be unreasonable to expect in Atlantic Canada that we move toward full employment; that we move toward a full opportunity economy which builds on the diversity of Atlantic Canada and ensures the full participation of women, youth, aboriginal people, visible minorities and people with disabilities.

It should be within our realm of opportunity to consider the importance of community involvement and the community control of economic decision-making. We should be building an economy based on environmentally sustainable economic principles. Nowhere other than in the Atlantic provinces have we seen the impact of not ensuring that our economic policies are environmentally sustainable.

We should be able to ensure the protection and the improvement of our social programs to support Atlantic Canadians in their times of difficulty between jobs and particularly now when we see that a major resource is simply not there to support the population as it did previously.

We need a new emphasis on co-operative development, an emphasis that places people and their communities ahead of corporate profit. We also need transportation systems that meet the needs of the regions so that products made within the region can effectively be moved to markets.

Atlantic regional development is not just about increasing incomes. Development is a process by which human capabilities and natural resources combine to fulfil social, cultural, political, psychological and material needs. This is a process in which increased self-reliance, independence of individuals, communities and the region are achieved by building on the strength that thrives on the interdependence of equals.

As someone who lived in Atlantic Canada for more than a decade, there are no more independent people in the country, wanting to work together for the benefit of all rather than work against each other so that only a few benefit.

Development can only be sustained if it strengthens the social fabric, building a consensus as to goals, values and means and focusing on increased productivity and the needs and potential of those in society, particularly the most disadvantaged. An integral component of real economic development strategy for

Atlantic Canada is the reduction of the inequity of incomes and the removal of the pain of poverty for so many of our citizens. It is clear from the writings of a wide range of economists that inequality of income is a major drain on economic growth.

These goals of building together will only be achieved if the process is from the bottom up, with people participating in the decisions that affect them. People in communities must recognize that they have a capacity and a responsibility to shape and direct the development process at all levels. That capacity and responsibility must be encouraged through the planning process and through the role that government plays.

The regional development policies of previous governments have always been controlled from the top down. Surely we believe that people in the community have the best interests of that community at heart. People who are rooted in a community have the most at stake in evaluating and encouraging sustainable development. It is critical that we use that resource, that understanding and that community commitment. We should support community economic development that gives communities a true sense of ownership and increases local control over the economy.

It has been very clear that allowing people to come in from outside, reap the profits and leave is a devastating strategy and one that has long term negative effects, not long term beneficial effects. As much as possible development should be owned and managed locally, be located within the community, provide work for local people, make use of local materials and serve community needs for products and services. The best types of economic development activities are those that maintain a community focus.

Let me make one more general comment with regard to this. If economic development is to work in Atlantic Canada it must pursue the principle of economic self-reliance. It is no longer possible in this country, if it ever was possible, to maintain industries and economic units that are no longer efficient. We need to pursue a principle of economic self-reliance, harnessing all of its resources to both determine and meet the needs of the people of Atlantic Canada. As I have said, that means the control of the resources and economic institutions must be much more firmly in the hands of Atlantic Canadians.

In order to ensure that community economic development objectives are met, one strategy would be to encourage the development of locally based community development organizations. They could represent all sectors of the community. Their function could be to oversee discussions, decisions and implementation of development projects.

This would ensure that the communities, in co-operation with the private and public sectors, would be instrumental in making decisions about the kind of development that would occur and would be able to ensure the community would benefit most from that development.

They could be coalitions of local, social, business, financial and labour organizations, as well as co-operatives and governments. They could perform the function of co-ordinating development within those various regions. They could be responsible for the allocation of whatever public funds might be available within those regions to ensure that those funds are used to the best possible advantage.

One very good example of how this could work is in Cape Breton. An organization called New Dawn Enterprises, which I have visited in the past, has assisted in developing a network of firms and facilities throughout Cape Breton. This development corporation holds assets of some $10 million and has become involved in a very wide range of activities from construction to real estate to care for the elderly. There are examples within Atlantic Canada we could learn from and utilize across the whole region.

Across Atlantic Canada there is a large, effective, efficient and responsive network of co-operatives we could also build on. Atlantic Canadians have built a co-operative movement which attests to their resilience and creativity in the face of adversity. Those co-operatives maintain jobs in the communities, provide services to the communities and provide local control to ensure that local needs are met. People have a stake in those enterprises and they often are more productive as a result.

It is necessary to ensure, at both the federal and provincial levels of government, that we remove any barriers to co-operative development and that we ensure and encourage the development of co-operatives across the region.

This is clearly an integral part of the development of Atlantic Canada. In the last decade, 1980 to 1989, small firms created 90 per cent of the new jobs in Atlantic Canada, while large firms saw reductions in employment capacities.

A report that was done by Enterprise Cape Breton found it was locally based operations which were the most successful. Projects that received $100,000 or less in the form of support had a success rate of 72 per cent, at an average cost of $23,000 per job, while those projects receiving $1 million or more had a failure rate of 71 per cent, with an average cost of $154,000 per job. The proof in Atlantic Canada is that it is small business that is going

to create jobs, and it is small business on which we should focus our activities.

The agencies that we have in operation in Atlantic Canada also need to be reconsidered. As I have pointed out they have not worked very well. Their support, in large sums of money, to large enterprises have not given benefit to the community as one would have wanted. However, support in small sums to small businesses have done so. We need to ensure that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency really becomes an advocate for employment creation and economic development in the region and is not used, as it has been in that past, as a political slush fund. We need to reconsider and reassess the agencies that we use as arms of government in the development of Atlantic Canada.

I have talked about co-operatives but credit unions also have an important role in Atlantic Canada and we need to encourage them as well. I will give one example of a real success story to show how credit unions can really contribute to the economic development of the region.

In 1984, in Eagle River, Labrador, the Bank of Montreal closed its branch saying it was no longer a viable operation, which is a fairly familiar picture across Canada. With the aid of the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company the community was able to establish its own credit union. In fact, it had the co-operation of the caisse populaire located in the neighbouring Quebec community. The credit union has been able to provide basic essential financial services to people in that area.

In the less than four years that this financial institution has existed it has provided more than $3 million in loans to local residents. It is a viable, profitable and locally owned enterprise, showing that credit unions can have a major role to play in the development of Atlantic Canada and across the country.

We should do what we can to support and nurture credit unions, especially those that are small and just beginning and need some support. There are many things that we can do. For example, governments could use credit unions much more than they do now as the depositories of funds or as their current accounts.

Much of Atlantic Canada is made up of single industry towns. Those are vulnerable communities, vulnerable economic units. Atlantic Canada is fortunate to have such resources in our communities but they must be managed by those who have the greatest stake in ensuring the long term viability of those resources in those communities, the people themselves.

Several resource based industries are in crisis and we should not tolerate that situation any longer. The most obvious of course is the fishery. Many of us today received representations indicating that a stock that had not been fished all that much in the past, turbot, is now under serious threat as a result of overfishing. It is important for Canada to exert its jurisdictional power to make sure that this resource does not go the way of the cod stocks which we all know so much about.

It is important for single industry towns, based on natural resources and non-renewable resources, to be much more effectively upgraded in the interest of the communities in which they operate.

I will not say any more about the fisheries. We all know what a disaster that has been. It is primarily a disaster because of federal policy mismanagement over the last few years, something we cannot do anything about now but something we do have to remember and treat as a lesson in the future.

The same sorts of concerns can be expressed about the forestry industry. In comparison to forestry industries in the rest of the world, a great proportion of forestry in Atlantic Canada is privately owned: New Brunswick, 49 per cent; Nova Scotia, about 70 per cent. This resource has not been used for the benefit of those living in Atlantic Canada but rather to benefit the corporations that control it and, which incidentally, pursue forestry practices that in their home countries they would not be able to pursue.

Therefore, we have to ensure that resource is also one for the benefit of the communities in question and for the benefit of Atlantic Canada. It must be developed in a way that is sustainable, to provide jobs and economic opportunities for Atlantic Canadians well into the future and ensure that young people from Atlantic Canada do not have to leave their homes in order to find economic opportunity.

In my last few moments I would like to make a quick reference to developments in two provinces and two resource based provinces which might be of use in considering how to develop Atlantic Canada. Let me first take the example of British Columbia and the arrangements that have been made there in order to develop the forestry industry.

We know that in the past there has been enormous tension between the forestry companies and environmentalists, between communities and environmentalists, the workers in the forestry industry and environmentalists. We know we have to resolve those differences.

What British Columbia did in a unique way was bring those different interests together and work with them to find a vision for the future of that region. Everyone made sacrifices and everyone gained. However, in the end there was a common vision adopted to which everyone could be committed and to which everyone could work. That is the clear focus. We have to change the way in which we consider economic development. We have to make sure we all work together to the best advantage of all.

I would certainly recommend that B.C. approach Atlantic Canadians and the federal-provincial governments, labour unions within the province, the business community, the communities themselves and environmentalists within Atlantic Canada. That should be pursued as a goal for economic opportunity development in the region.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as an Atlantic Canadian it is a pleasure to speak on this motion. The motion by the NDP member strikes to the core of what we are talking about in Atlantic Canada as we try to improve our lot and to become a have part of our country.

I would like to talk about the infrastructure program. I would also like to talk about my own community of greater Moncton. It shares some of the problems alluded to in the motion, particularly having a single industry. The Canadian National Railway employed upward of 5,000 people and will effectively close. What does that mean to a community such as Moncton and what we have been able to do both on our own and with assistance? I will quickly talk about the infrastructure program and then move on to my own experiences.

The infrastructure program is near and dear to my heart. In my other life as mayor and councillor of the city of Moncton, I had the good fortune to be on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities task force dealing with infrastructure. It was a program which was advocated for many years and it took the Liberal government to actually put it into effect. We are seeing massive benefits throughout the country, particularly in Atlantic Canada.

In my own riding of Moncton we were given roughly $4 million of federal funding for the infrastructure program. To date with the projects that we have on the go in our community, we are going to see an investment of roughly $30 million.

For a Canadian federal government program, seeing an investment of $4 million turn into $30 million is an investment and not an expenditure. That is why the infrastructure program works in Atlantic Canada. That is why it is of benefit.

I would like to refer the House to some of the things that are happening as a result of the infrastructure program in Atlantic Canada. These agreements represent a total federal investment in the Atlantic region of $181 million. That in turn will generate equal investments on behalf of the provinces and the municipalities for a total investment of $540 million into the Atlantic economy resulting from the Canada infrastructure program.

It is estimated that over 9,500 person years of employment will be created in the region, both on and off the project sites across Atlantic Canada. As of December 31, 1994 over 575 projects have already been approved in Atlantic Canada. This represents a total investment of $450 million in the Atlantic Canada economy and will create over 7,300 jobs in the region.

Projects under way under the infrastructure agreements in the Atlantic region range from installation and upgrading of sewer systems to rebuilding roadways and linking up public schools to the electronic highway.

More than 60 per cent of the federal dollars committed in the Atlantic region are for water and sewer projects. Almost 12 per cent of the federal investment is to construct and repair municipal roads. Another 16 per cent is committed for community based projects. High technology projects are also being supported and account for 4 per cent of the federal government contribution.

Those are all good projects, projects that really make things happen in Atlantic Canada. That is why the infrastructure program is a success.

We are looking for partnerships. We are looking for spinoffs associated with this program. That is what we have done in my riding of Moncton and what we have done throughout Atlantic Canada.

When we see an investment of roughly $200 million in Atlantic Canada spinning off to roughly $600 million and then going higher to $800 million and $900 million, this is an investment, not an expenditure.

We listen to Reform Party members on their position with respect to the infrastructure program but mind you, they still take the dollars when it comes to their ridings. When we listen to what they say about Atlantic Canada and where we should be, the Reform Party is of the view that the only solution offered to Atlantic Canada is to tell them to move. "Get them out of Atlantic Canada," is the Reform Party solution.

To quote the Reform Party again, its finance critic says: "The rest of Canada is not prepared to foot the bill for Atlantic Canada". There is no bill. We are making a contribution in this country. We are making things happen and the Reform Party's view is: "Tell them to move". Shame on them.

To quote the Reform Party's budget on page 34: "There would be some short term costs associated with fiscal retrenchment. These costs would come primarily in the form of adjustments that economic sectors and regions of our economy most dependent on government transfers would have to make". The code words: Atlantic Canada.

Going on to page 36: "Under the Reform budget, the short term employment impact of spending and deficit reduction is negative but manageable". It will not be manageable in Atlantic Canada if it goes through with its program to eliminate ACOA, which has created 42,000 jobs in its first five years and has stimulated major private sector investments of $2.4 billion.

ACOA pays for itself. It is an investment that generates $4.2 dollars of benefit for every dollar of public funding spent.

We are not prepared to sign on to the Reform Party budget that would see 65,000 Atlantic Canadians out of work over the next five years. We are not signing on for the principle that we should move somewhere else because Atlantic Canada, in my humble opinion, is the best place in all of Canada in which to live.

I want to talk about a community that has pulled itself up by the bootstraps. That is my community of greater Moncton. We experienced the upper Canadian and western Canada view that we should just shut down everything in Atlantic Canada. We lost Eaton's catalogue, Swift's and the Canadian National Railway Company. They were all major employers in our community.

We turned around and made investments in our community. We made investments in our downtown and in a new way of doing things. Arising out of those investments now is the fastest growing community in Atlantic Canada, greater Moncton. For the edification of the Reform Party The Wall Street Journal wrote about the community of greater Moncton: "It is the call centre for North America. It is the centre that is showing the way, the new wave of the new economy, to the rest of Canada and to North America".

[An hon. member]

They are not real jobs.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

They are real jobs. We are employing people. On top of that, we recognized that we were a bilingual community and that was an asset. We built on l'Université de Moncton, on the bilingual nature of our community. Now we are employing people and making things happen.

These people do not want to move. They want to stay in Moncton. They want to stay in Atlantic Canada. We even have people coming from British Columbia who now want to live in our community. We are seeing a migration to Moncton rather than away from it.

I say to Reform Party members: They should rethink their budget and their approach to regional development. Recognize that Atlantic Canada is a great place to be. It is going to be a have part of this country in the not too distant future because we are taking advantage of those investments this Liberal government is giving us. That is why we support this motion.