Bryon Wilfert

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Members of the House have had the opportunity to hear about the important transformation CIHR will bring to health research in Canada. Increased funding will make more resources available to find Canada's best researchers in making the discoveries that will make a difference to the lives of people around the world.

The structure of the institutes will provide a mechanism for developing a strategic vision for research in thematic areas that will meet the needs and priorities of Canadians.

It will be the focal point around which all partners in the health research process will gather, including those who fund research, those who perform it and those who use its results. CIHR will provide the support that is needed to make Canada the place to be for the best and the brightest health researchers in the world. The result will be better health for Canadians, a better and a more efficient health care system, and economic growth and job creation in the burgeoning life science sector.

If my hon. colleagues will excuse what is sometimes a trite phrase, let me say that the whole of CIHR will be much greater than the sum of its parts. The reason for this is the way that CIHR will mobilize resources in every region of the country.

CIHR will make its impact felt in the regions through mobilizing increased funding for health research in research centres across Canada. It will make its impact felt through its direct effects on the efficient and cost effective operation of Canada's health care system. It will make its impact felt by building the research capacity platform in centres across Canada and it will make its impact felt through a new focus on community.

Through its focus on partnerships CIHR will take the increased federal investment in health research and make it grow even more. Partnerships will bring more research funders to the table to embark on jointly funded collaborative projects. These projects will result in an even greater level of research activity in many centres across the country.

The Medical Research Council of Canada has had tremendous success with its partnership programs, so much so that for every federal tax dollar invested in health research $1.36 was spent on health research. I have no doubt that the integrated and co-operative structure of the CIHR will continue this successful leveraging of our tax dollars to create an even better dividend for Canadians. The CIHR is designed to work in partnership with provincial and territorial health departments, with our universities, with our health science centres and with our research agencies.

As every member of the House is aware, responsibility for delivering health services is the responsibility of the provinces, but CIHR will have the potential to have a strong positive impact on provincial health care systems. Creating new knowledge is important, but CIHR is designed to facilitate the process of translating research results into application and innovation.

CIHR will establish links with provincial and territorial health service agencies and with those responsible for delivery of health information and health care in each province. Through these links CIHR will help provinces acquire the evidence they need to make important decisions about how best to deliver health services to their residents.

Bill C-13 is an extremely important piece of legislation for the people of my riding of Oak Ridges and for the residents of the city of Toronto. It is about our health. It is about innovation in our community and it is about our position in the knowledge based economy. Toronto has had a long and proud history in health research. Torontonians have a tremendous record of contributing to the health of Canadians and to people around the world through their research discoveries.

I think most obviously about Frederick Banting and Charles Best, researchers at the University of Toronto who through their investigative spirit and genius discovered insulin, a discovery which has saved millions and millions of lives in Canada and around the world. There is little doubt that it is among the greatest Canadian achievements of the past century. To this day it evokes tremendous pride among people in my riding and among people across the country. The University of Toronto has named one of its research centres the Banting and Best Institute in honour of this historic achievement.

More recently I think of Lap-Chee Tsui, a world renowned researcher at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, who discovered the gene for cystic fibrosis. His research in genetics and genomics is truly opening up a new world of knowledge about our health which promises new and effective tools to promote health and treat disease.

Toronto's research community is dynamic and vibrant. It has researchers across the full spectrum of research, from basic molecular biologists to social scientists looking at the broad determinants of health.

The University of Toronto is Canada's largest research university. Given the quality of its science and the excellence of its research, it is the most successful university in the MRC's peer review funding competitions. This past year the University of Toronto and its affiliated institutions received $55 million in research funding from the MRC.

The research infrastructure in Toronto contains some of Canada's most prized research institutions: the Hospital for Sick Children, the Mount Sinai Hospital, the Toronto General Hospital, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Studies, just to name a few. The health research conducted in Toronto is of the highest standards of scientific excellence.

The objective of the CIHR as set out in Bill C-13 is to excel according to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products and a strengthened health care system.

While its standards of excellence may be international, its impacts will be felt in every region of the country, whether it is in Toronto or in the maritimes. For example, in Halifax at Dalhousie University a doctor is studying stimulant use among adolescents. In Montreal Dr. Thomas Hudson of the Montreal General Hospital is examining the genetic causes of common human diseases. It is also going to flourish in Vancouver where at the University of British Columbia Dr. Janice Eng is studying balance and other problems experienced by patients with Parkinson's disease. It will flourish in centres right across the country.

I commend the bill to the House. I hope all parties will support this very important initiative of the federal government.

[Sir Wilfrid Laurier, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, November 20 will mark the 158th anniversary of the birth of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Our seventh prime minister was a true Canadian, a man who believed in the virtue of tolerance and national unity. He provided Canadians with a legacy of bringing English and French speaking Canadians together in harmony in a united Canada.

Laurier's vision of the Canadian reality and his leadership gave our country the push forward and the confidence it needed at a critical moment in history. The opening of the Canadian west and the formation of the Canadian navy all occurred under his watch.

Professor Granatstein in his book Who Killed Canadian History? , comments that the knowledge of our history is disappearing. We need to honour our heroes. I urge the government to proclaim a day of recognition for our seventh prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House regarding Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act.

I find myself at somewhat of a loss this afternoon due to two events that have just recently occurred in Toronto. The first case is the senseless beating death of 15 year old Dmitri Baranovski. His assailants are still at large. His parents are facing their worst nightmare. They had to bury their own child.

At the memorial to celebrate his life, Rabbi Zaltzman encouraged everyone there to chase away the darkness of the violence of Dmitri's death. He urged government to strengthen laws against violence.

In the second case, police in Toronto found a 14 year old girl bruised and bleeding with cigarette burns down her back after enduring two hours of torture from four older teenage girls. As the press reported this morning, she said “All this needs to stop. If it was my world—I know that sounds childish—but seriously, if it was my world, nothing like this would go on”.

I do not think that sounds childish at all. I would like the House to be able to tell her that we will make it stop, that nothing like what happened to her will happen to another.

The impact of cases like these means that we, as elected members, must examine the difficult issues surrounding our youth and use our elected office as instruments to chase away the darkness of violence.

Canadians expect communities, where they live, work and raise their families, to be safe, secure and healthy. They reflect who we are. They also make us who we are. We want all Canadians, especially our youth, to participate fully in our society.

We are committed to working with partners to reform the youth justice system and so the bill focuses on prevention, meaningful consequences, rehabilitation and reintegration.

My constituents in Oak Ridges have been quite clear. They are very concerned about youth who violently break the law or repeatedly break the law. At the same time, they want a system that promotes accountability, respect, responsibility and fairness.

We all know that there is a consequence for every action that we take, and my constituents want that to be made very clear to young people before they think abut breaking a law. That means that we have to talk about prevention, about addressing the root causes of crime and encouraging community efforts to reduce crime. Let us reduce crime by eliminating it before it even begins.

As a former educator, I found that if I had to deal with a disciplinary situation with one of my students, the best approach was one of respect and dignity. Yes, that is a far distance from violent crime, but the principle of respect remains the same.

Our young people must know and understand that there are consequences to a crime they might commit and that they will be held accountable. A key principle of the bill is on sentencing. The sentence that a youth receives should be proportional to the seriousness of the offence.

For example, provisions in the new legislation will allow an adult sentence for a youth 14 years old or more who is convicted of an offence punishable by more than two years in jail.

It will also establish a more efficient process that gives the courts the power to impose adult sentences on conviction when certain criteria are met. This would result in a system that respects the due process rights of the accused, places less of a burden on victims and families and would give any court hearing a case involving a youth the tools it needs to deal appropriately with the case.

It will expand the offences for which a youth who is convicted of an offence is expected to be given an adult sentence to include a pattern of convictions for serious, violent offences.

It will extend the group of offenders who are presumed to receive an adult sentence to include 14 and 15 year olds. It will permit victim impact statements to be introduced in youth court.

I believe these provisions speak to what Rabbi Zaltzman said about strengthening laws against violence.

When youth commit crimes, it is important that there are programs and treatment available to prevent them from reoffending. Bill C-3 also includes these elements of rehabilitation and reintegration.

It is important to remember that, yes, young people must be held accountable for their crimes, but they are also more likely than adult offenders to be rehabilitated and become law-abiding citizens.

The bill would require all periods of custody to be followed by an intensive period of supervision in the community that is equal to half the period of custody. This would allow authorities to closely monitor the young person and ensure that he or she receives the help necessary to return safely and successfully to their community.

It would also require conditions to be imposed on periods of supervision. This could be targeted to the youth's particular circumstances, such as attending school, finding employment or obeying a curfew. It could also include abstaining from alcohol or drugs, attending treatment or counselling and not associating with gang members.

These are the types of measures that my constituents have told me that they want.

We will work with our partners: the provinces, municipal governments, law enforcement agencies, the courts, social service officials, educators, parents and so many others.

This is a reasonable and considered approach. It includes alternatives to the justice system for non-violent offences and has built-in flexibility that the provinces have said that they want.

I urge members of the House to use their elected offices wisely and to support the motion of the Minister of Justice, the member for Edmonton West, that the bill be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. By doing so, they will be acting as instruments of light against the sorts of youth violence that I mentioned earlier, and they will be making it clear to 14 year old teenagers that we want to make sure nothing like this will go on again. If we do that I believe we will have advanced the cause.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about vision. We talk about vision on this side of the House. We are looking at matters such as rebuilding the national infrastructure.

We have a $40 billion deficit. I remind the House that it was this government in 1993 that adopted the the proposal of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which was wandering in the wilderness when the Tories were in power. For five years we have had a strong national infrastructure program that is being renewed in the Speech from the Throne.

As one who comes from the greater Toronto area, and as chair of the greater Toronto area caucus on our side of the House, I want to say how important this is for an area of 4.5 million people. To reinvest in core infrastructure is extremely important for the residents of the GTA.

We talk about vision. In the Speech from the Throne we are talking about investing in the economy and technology. I realize that when we talk about investing in technology we are talking to some people here who still believe the earth is flat, but the fact is that in this case we are talking about a vision of going forward to the 21st century, not back to the 19th century.

We are looking at a program that is investing in high technology. I happen to come from an area of the greater Toronto area with probably the highest percentage in Canada of new technology in terms of computer industries. Members opposite may be working with Ouija boards over there, but from our standpoint we are looking ahead at advancement.

When it comes to vision, we know what vision is about. Fortunately our vision is forward, not backward.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure the other week to speak on Bill C-10. I first want to say, as a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, that when the member opposite asks about saying one thing and doing another, Bill C-10 is an excellent example of doing something in consultation. In fact, when the original freeze on payments-in-lieu-of-taxes was brought in in December 1992 by the previous Conservative government there was no consultation.

Since 1993, this government has worked tirelessly with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities establishing, for example, the technical committee which reviewed the whole issue of making payments on time, making sure that they pay interest if they are late and making sure that if they want to appeal they go through the normal process.

Some of my colleagues on the other side, including my friend for Brandon—Souris, was on the national board of the FCM at that time. He, among others, spoke very loudly about what the Conservative government had done at the time in not putting private companies on a level playing field with public companies like the CBC given the fact that it was getting a 10% discount.

I would point out to the hon. member, when he talks about actions, that it was this government in 1993 that embraced the national infrastructure program. Unfortunately, none of the parties on the other side embraced it in 1993. It has created over 125,000 direct and indirect jobs. It has been announced again in the Speech from the Throne that by the December 2000, with the co-operation of municipal and provincial governments, we will have a new national infrastructure program.

We talk about the environment, the 20% club. This government initiated with municipal governments across Canada to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% over 10 years.

We talk about urban crime and safety issues. In 1997, I had the pleasure to be on the team Canada mission with the Prime Minister to Asia. I had mayors, some from communities across the way, who were on that mission. It was the first time in the history of federal-provincial-municipal relations that we were able to have a meeting. As president, I had a meeting with the Prime Minister and the premiers in Manila in 1997 to talk about infrastructure. The Prime Minister listened to those issues and in the end the program was extended.

We talk about community energy programs where we are trying to reduce CO2 emissions to improve the energy in the country. It is this government which embraced with the FCM that program.

We talk about actions. I would point out that in November 1996 I had the pleasure of addressing the first ever federal-provincial environment and natural resources ministers conference on these issues dealing with the environment.

When we talk about co-operation and talk about listening, the government needs no lessons from the Reform Party. The government needs no lessons when it comes to working in concert with municipal governments. Maybe we could eliminate the middlemen, which would be the provinces.

I should point out to the member that he is in error. Two weeks before this bill was introduced in the House, the FCM was given a full briefing on Bill C-10. It was introduced at first reading in the House on October 27. I believe that after second reading it goes to committee, and I know the FCM will be there. The FCM has supported all along the fact that we want to have ground rules that we can all agree to. We have that. This legislation has been drafted to deal with those issues.

Would my hon. colleague across the way like to comment on any of those things given the fact that when we talk about actions and co-operation I have tried to outline those very briefly for him?

I had a longer opportunity the other week to talk about some of the real issues that the federal and municipal governments have been able to deal with. My good friend from Dauphin—Swan River, who was a municipal mayor, was certainly involved in terms of dealing with issues and looking at the response of a national government when it dealt with these kinds of very important issues for the community, again remembering that there is only one taxpayer.

If the hon. member would like the make any comments on those observations, I would be delighted to hear them.

[Canvas Of War, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during Veterans Week I made a statement in the House about honouring our Canadian war artists. Today I am pleased to let the House know that the Canvas of War opens on February 11, 2000 at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The exhibition will present over 70 of the Canadian War Museum's best paintings, many of which have not been displayed in over 80 years.

Among the selected works are paintings by members of the Group of Seven and by Alex Colville. The exhibition will be on display at the Canadian Museum of Civilization until January 10, 2001. It is then scheduled to travel to four other venues in Canada and two in the United States.

Canada has one of the finest war art collections in the world. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and every member of the House will plan on going to see this very important exhibit.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 5th, 1999]

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member collaborated what I said with regard to the fact that it was consulted.

I do not remember saying that absolutely everything that every municipal government or the FCM wanted was in the bill.

On the one hand we are saying that it took four and a half years to get here. I guess the inference is that the process has been slow. It was deliberately done in a way that got all of the parties to the table, and that concluded in the agreement of 1997. If there was not a federal election in April 1997, the legislation may have been before the House at that time. To reinforce that we were getting it right, we held consultations during the summer of last year.

What we have here is, in general, without question, what the FCM wanted to see. When the bill goes to committee, I am sure that anything that needs to be clarified or added will be dealt with.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, although I come from the fastest growing community in Canada, Richmond Hill, the riding is Oak Ridges. We have not expanded to Oakville yet, although we are probably working on it, but I do thank the member for that.

The president of the FCM was on Parliament Hill two weeks ago. At that time—

[Municipal Grants Act, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague opposite for his questions. I have the greatest respect him. In our previous lives we used to correspond a lot, but we never actually came face to face until we came to the House. I do not think it was a surprise to either of us that we have a fair number of things in common when it comes to municipal concerns.

First, this legislation will treat the federal government as a taxpayer, just like everyone else. The government will pay on time. It will pay penalties if it does not. The bill will ensure that if there is an assessment question the government will go through the same process as taxpayers go through.

As far as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is concerned, it was briefed two weeks ago. The minister in June 1998 went to the FCM convention along with the Prime Minister. It is too bad the Leader of the Opposition was not there. He missed a tremendous speech on this issue.

This is what happened. The minister, in consultation with the FCM, in June said to over 2,000 delegates “I want to hear from you”, which is why the round tables were set up across the country. I am sure the minister met with mayors and councillors in their ridings to get feedback so that the minister would hear the concerns of the grassroots. That is what happened.

The bill will be going to committee after second reading. I can guarantee members that the president of the FCM will be there and that he will make any comments with regard to anything in the legislation that the FCM may have a question about. But to suggest for a moment that it was not briefed is not the case. I do not know to whom he was speaking at the FCM, but the executive director and the policy director were fully briefed. They knew what was in the bill. Two weeks have gone by and my phone is not broken, but they did not call me.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague had been here in 1992. With those kinds of comments we might not have had the Tories impose the arbitrary freeze and reduction on municipal governments. Where were our friends in the Tory party in 1992? Unfortunately they were not here, but that is history.

I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the FCM was fully briefed two weeks ago. The president of the FCM will be at committee. There certainly will not be any ramming. I presume there will be full debate. I hope to take part in those discussions. Even though I am not a member of the committee, I intend to show up. This is obviously something that is near and dear not only to my heart but to all colleagues.

We are in agreement. I was very heartened to hear that the member will support this legislation. Unfortunately his predecessors were not as generous or enlightened as the hon. gentleman across the way. I thank him and look forward to his support.