Derek Wells

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. There are concerns with the current TAGS appeal process. This has been acknowledged by the minister who committed a few weeks ago to quickly address the concerns of thousands of fishermen with the appeal process.

Can the minister report to the House on what concrete action he has taken to ensure that the appeals process is fair to all TAGS applicants?

[The Budget, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand on my question of February 24 to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry on the matter of tourism.

Tourism plays a major role in the lives of my constituents on the south shore of Nova Scotia. It is important that tourism continue to be promoted as it is serving to revitalize communities that have been devastated by the downturn in the fishery.

In the South Shore tourism generates $100 million annually while providing employment for thousands of people. It is an industry that can and will play a leading role in the economic recovery of my area.

For instance, in 1994 the South Shore experienced a 20 per cent increase in room sales. This was the largest percentage increase in Nova Scotia. More than 127,000 people signed guest books at the South Shore tourist bureaus. This represented an increase of 19 per cent over 1993. The South Shore is popular but it has potential to be even more so. I say this because 30 per cent of visitors were from inside the province of Nova Scotia, 29 per cent were from other parts of Canada, 28 per cent were from the United States and 5 per cent were international visitors.

There is so much to see and do along the South Shore. I am partial to the charms of Chester, having chosen to settle down there over 20 years ago. There is colourful Lunenburg, home of the Bluenose and the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic currently seeking a designation of world heritage status. There is Oak Island with its hidden treasure which is celebrating its 200th anniversary this year.

In Queens county there are spectacular white sandy beaches and several ecotourism sites, including the Keji seaside adjunct and the bird sanctuary in Port Joli. These treasures have been left largely untouched for the public to enjoy. At the western end of my riding is Shelburne with its historic waterfront which is gaining a good reputation as a destination for movie makers.

As a representative for an area like the South Shore, I am sure members can understand that I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce last fall that he had accepted the recommendations made by his special advisor on tourism. The creation of the Canadian tourism committee and the allocation of base funding totalling $50 million certainly has the potential to allow for effective marketing of Canada at home and abroad. I do, however, have some concerns about how this is all going to work.

First, in addition to the very successful South Shore Tourism Association, there are many local tourism committees that have been established to formulate strategies to increase the amount of tourism traffic in their respective areas. I am constantly being asked if and how they can access this tourism promotion money. I am having difficulty answering these questions because that has never been made clear. Media reports make it sound like there is a pot of money for these people to access. Yet the material I have received is vague on how the money will be allocated.

Second, I would be interested to know how the Canadian tourism commission will benefit rural areas like mine when to date efforts seem to be rather metro driven. Will the interests of small businesses, which comprise a large proportion of the tourism industry, be appropriately represented?

Finally, I am concerned about an overlap of effort. The Canadian tourism commission seems to be just a larger scale version of the Atlantic Canada tourism partnership which was established in late 1993. I would hope that these groups will be working together rather than at cross purposes.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that I support the intent behind the establishment of this commission. Because I have seen the positive benefits that tourism can have in an area, I want to see Canada eliminate its tourism deficit. However, first I want specifics on how this will be done.

[Tourism, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

I have active tourism committees in my riding of South Shore in Nova Scotia. They would like an update on the progress of the Canadian Tourism Commission and how the commission will help them in their job of promoting tourism.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the new provisions for 16 and 17 year olds are not yet law. They are simply before the House in the bill. I would ask the member to give them a chance. I think he will see that they will make a difference.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe when we broke there were approximately two minutes left so I will keep my answer short.

It will come as no surprise that I disagree almost completely with the premise of the member for Wild Rose. We ignore the sociological factors at our peril.

I would be more apt to accept the views of Dr. Alan Leschied over those of the hon. member. The hon. member will perhaps remember that Dr. Leschied was at the committee hearing. I believe the hon. member was in attendance when he addressed the factors that had to be considered. If we read the transcript which is quite lengthy it would set out the views that I expressed earlier in my representations.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to comment on Bill C-41. I will comment on the provisions of Bill C-37.

What I said earlier applies. We have to find the balance. We are dealing with young offenders. We are dealing with people of a tender age, if we can use that worn expression. I do see some benefit if we are dealing with the four most serious offences that we are now treating differently for 16 and 17 year olds.

I would consider engaging in some discussion on those types of offences at that age of individual, to look at perhaps publishing the names even if the youth court decided they would remain in youth court. There is some discussion that could be had on the point that perhaps peer pressure could be brought to bear. There are some advantages in school principals and others knowing who these people are. I think that is the point being made.

I do not suggest for a minute that some of the points are not good points. I am suggesting that some of the flaws or concerns we had originally with the Young Offenders Act have been addressed in this bill.

There is phase two. We are going to go forward with a further review of the act. Suggestions you have of that nature have some merit. I would not hesitate at all to discuss the pros and cons, recognizing at the end of the day that perhaps everything you want and everything I want we may not get.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

I rise today to speak in favour of the amendments to the Young Offenders Act put forward by the Minister of Justice and confirmed by the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as tabled in this House on December 8.

First of all, I can state that I consider the minister's two-part strategy to reform the youth justice system to be an appropriate response to the problems of youth crime.

As a lawyer and as someone who has worked with youth for many years and also as a parent, I do not support the hard line argument that a weak Young Offenders Act is leading today's youth to commit more and more crimes. I acknowledge that the act has shortcomings but I am satisfied that the amendments in Bill C-37 will begin to close the gaps, increase rehabilitation and improve public safety.

While I support the need for changes in the Young Offenders Act, I consider it imperative that any changes be based on the best available knowledge rather than on public fear and anger or on the widely held myth that harsher punishments are what is needed to bring most youth crimes and violence under control.

I believe that most criminal behaviour stems from sociological factors. I am therefore pleased that phase two, the parliamentary review of the Young Offenders Act, will include a study of the alternatives to legislative responses to youth crime. If we can prevent youth crime by gaining an understanding of the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and tackling these causes, then I think it will be proven that the Young Offenders Act is an effective tool of the justice system.

Rehabilitation should be the ultimate goal of any legislation dealing with youth crime. The act as it now stands is somewhat lacking in this area but I feel that the changes proposed in Bill C-37 will begin to address this deficiency. This legislation is an indication that the rehabilitative needs of young people are being seen in relation to the need to address issues related to public safety. I would like now to comment on the various components of Bill C-37.

The bill proposes two major changes to the act's declaration of principles which I feel set a more appropriate tone for its interpretation in court. This is achieved by acknowledging two truths: one, that crime prevention is essential to the long term protection of society; and two, that there is a relationship between the protection, society and the rehabilitation of offenders.

Bill C-37 proposes an increase in the maximum penalty for first degree and second degree murder to 10 and 7 years respectively. This is an important change. In fact I would support a further increase in these maximums for this most terrible of crimes.

The proposed change to the act which requires 16 and 17 year old youths charged with specified serious crimes involving violence to be tried in adult court is a significant departure from the current system of treating all youth between the ages of 14 and 17 the same way. This will ensure a more appropriate response to each young offender's transgression. For those who have to go through the process of showing the judge why they should be tried in youth court, this amendment will ensure that they are left with a clear understanding of the seriousness of the charge and the consequences of their violent action.

Section 16 of the act specifies the criteria to be considered by the youth court in making these transfer decisions. I would like to quote them because they are important. The criteria include: the alleged offence, the age, the character and criminal record of the young person, the availability of treatment in either system-that is a very important criterion-and any other factors considered relevant by the court.

In making transfer decisions, youth courts must consider both the protection of the public and the rehabilitation of the young person. Where the two objectives are irreconcilable, protection of the public is to be paramount. The young person must then be proceeded against in adult court.

There have been a lot of discussions on this change. People have raised the argument that this will be set aside on a charter argument in time. I guess we will have to wait and see on that. For certain, there is a reverse onus. We acknowledge there is a reverse onus.

Some people may have difficulty with that but I agree with it. Some people suggest there is a presumption of guilt built into this, that the young offender is presumed guilty. I reject that argument. I do not feel there is a presumption of guilt built into this section.

On balance I feel this change is good. It is appropriate. Let us not forget that it deals with only the four most serious crimes: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault.

The amendment which allows for victim impact statements to be made in court meets the strong demand of victims to be a part of the criminal justice process.

Two other important amendments are the changes to the record provisions of the act and the improvement of information sharing within the youth justice system. The general public and young offenders will both benefit from an increased level of co-operation among the various professionals who work with young people in the community.

The proposal that allows a judge to impose conditional probation at any time it is deemed necessary for the benefit of the youth or for the protection of the public is another amendment which should meet the demands of those concerned with public safety and those in favour of rehabilitation for young offenders. The same can be said for the change that will authorize the courts to request psychological and medical assessment of chronic and serious young offenders.

As a person in favour of measures to improve the chances of rehabilitation, I find the proposal encouraging the consideration of alternatives to custody for less serious crimes an important one. Many experts report that closed custody is the most expensive and least effective way of dealing with less violent forms of delinquency. This change responds to research which shows that non-violent young people do better when they are treated in the community away from more serious and violent young offenders. It also recognizes the widely held belief that custody often undermines rehabilitation.

By allowing for any number of alternatives to be considered, the youth system will be able to identify the most effective way of dealing with each individual offender. As well, it forces young offenders to take an active responsibility for their actions. This change is an important one because ultimately rehabilitation improves public safety.

As I stated earlier, I am satisfied that the proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act are appropriate. Most of the amendments demonstrate an underlying concern with protecting the public while allowing for the necessary conditions to encourage rehabilitation.

The Young Offenders Act is based on the premise that youth should be held responsible for their illegal actions but that young people have special needs as they develop and mature. It is therefore a balance between the need to protect the public and the need to assist young persons in conflict with the law to develop into productive law-abiding adults. The proposed amendments maintain this critical balance.

In addition to the changes I have discussed, I believe that the findings of the widespread review being conducted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be important to the development of a co-ordinated long term response to the general problem of crime in Canada.

Legislation is only one part of the solution however. It is becoming increasingly apparent that until we are able to effectively address the issues of poverty, alcoholism, family violence, abuse, racism and illiteracy just to name a few, our legislative efforts at reducing youth crime will continue to be deemed as insufficient.

In his presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Dr. Alan Leschied, assistant director of the London Family Court Clinic, confirmed this research by citing four major predicators as to why kids commit crime. First, he noted it has something to do with the nature of families and how we in our society function as families. Second, it reflects the impact and nature of friendships and peer influence. Third, it has something to do with how we develop certain attitudes that justify anti-social actions. Fourth, it can also have a lot to do with substance abuse.

Research has proven that there are reasonable links between crime prevention and the proper care of children. Youth who turn to criminal activity often come from an environment where poverty, neglect, substance abuse, physical abuse and unemployment are the norm. It goes without saying that the more positive influences that are present, the better.

While Dr. Leschied expressed his opinion that there is no cure for crime, he noted there are solutions that will reduce the incidents of youth crime.

For instance, a solid relationship with caring adults has been shown to deter children from developing anti-social behaviour. Therefore, where possible as a society we must ensure that youth are raised in a supportive environment. Where this is not possible we must work to ensure that there are adequate support networks to assist youths and their families.

High quality day care and an adequate education can also have a significant impact on behaviour. In addition to providing a solid basis for the future, schools can also play an important role in crime prevention by, among other things, teaching young people about the legal system; encouraging the development of social skills, including responsibility, tolerance and respect for others; teaching methods of conflict resolution; including anti--

racism programs in the curriculum; and early identification of and intervention for those with serious problems.

As well, it may be more appropriate for those children who grow up in homes where violence, drug or alcohol abuse or emotional and mental problems are prevalent to be dealt with by the mental health system rather than the justice system. It is clear to me that in most cases it is only when all the support systems fail that the justice system is forced to respond to youth who have committed a criminal offence.

Therefore we should be focusing our efforts on improving the effectiveness of these services. I am hopeful that the results of phase two will support this argument.

For those who feel that the amendments introduced in Bill C-37 do not go far enough, I would like to quote from an editorial which recently appeared in the Chronicle Herald, a local newspaper in Halifax, Nova Scotia: "We should be careful not to equate our wishes for teenagers to have more respect for people and property with shortcomings in the Young Offenders Act or the criminal justice system. Reform of the act is not a panacea for the apparent discipline problem of our youth. Fundamental social and family problems put children in court".

Before concluding, there seems to be some misunderstanding of what the Young Offenders Act is supposed to do and perhaps some misunderstanding of what the amendments propose. In the few remaining minutes I would like to set out again for the record the major elements of the act.

There are amendments to provide that 16 and 17 year olds charged with specified serious crimes involving violence will be proceeded against in adult court unless the youth court orders that they be proceeded against in youth court. There are amendments to increase the sentences in youth court for young persons convicted of murder. There are amendments to increase the period of time that 16 and 17 year olds convicted of murder in adult court must serve before becoming eligible to apply for parole.

There are amendments that provide that young offenders should be accountable to their victims and to the public through non-custodial dispositions where appropriate. There are amendments to provide that the records of young persons convicted of specified serious offences will be retained for longer periods and that records for young persons convicted of minor offences will be retained for shorter periods. There are amendments to provide for greater sharing of information relating to young offenders with persons who require such information for safety reasons.

There is always a fine balance when trying to determine what is best for society and what is best for the individual. Every piece of legislation does not get it right every time. This, like any criminal justice legislation, is evolving. It continues to be reviewed. It has to be reviewed on a regular basis.

I feel that these amendments address some of the very real issues in front of the public today. The general public has been asking for changes and I believe the government has responded. It has responded in a reasonable way and it has listened to people who work with youth.

On a number of occasions I attended the committee hearings. The committee had experts attend to give evidence and it had experts that worked with youth on a regular basis. They were people who understand the system, who understand the youth justice system and who understand what is required for rehabilitation. I believe that to a large extent, although not in every instance, what is incorporated into this legislation reflects what the committee heard from the experts who appeared before it.

The quote I used earlier states my position and the government's position very clearly. We should be careful not to equate our wish for teenagers to have more respect for people and property with shortcomings in the Young Offenders Act or the criminal justice system. I believe that is a truism. I believe it strongly and I fully support the amendments put forth in Bill C-37.

[Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand our time is up for debate on this issue. Unfortunately I am not going to get the opportunity to deliver the tremendous speech I had prepared for this time.

I would like to go on record, with your permission, to advise the House that I was going to speak in favour of Bill C-285 and that I fully support the House referring this to the Standing Committee on Finance for-

[Law Of The Sea, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago the United Nations law of the sea treaty was adopted. Today that treaty comes into force.

This treaty, which took over 10 years to negotiate, provides Canada with sovereign rights for exploring and exploiting the natural resources of approximately 1,500,000 square kilometres of continental shelf off our Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The treaty also gives Canada jurisdiction over the living resources within a 200 mile limit.

Although the treaty is now in force and many of its provisions have been implemented in state practice and accepted as customary international law, over 70 countries including Canada have yet to ratify it.

Over the past year Canada has taken steps beyond this treaty to protect its fish stocks. Perhaps now we should consider playing a leading role in calling for and participating in the widespread ratification of this treaty.

[Fisheries, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

In recent days questions have arisen about the tuna fishery and especially about Japanese involvement in this fishery.

Does this government intend to permit a Japanese tuna fishery in 1994 in Canadian waters?