Nick Discepola

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker, I was not impressed at all.

The member says that they are the protectors of democracy, that they accept the democratic decision made by Quebecers on October 30. Yet, that same evening, then Quebec premier Parizeau clearly said "See you next time", while the current premier threatened us again just recently.

I promised a constituent of mine that I would ask a question on his behalf. The question is: If Bloc Quebecois members truly respect democracy, why have there been two referendums, in which Quebecers expressed their will to remain Canadians? How could separation be achieved with only one yes win in a referendum?

The question was asked by a wise nine year old, my son Marco.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that, listening to the Bloc Quebecois member-

[National Police Week, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week we are celebrating national police week in Canada with the theme "Partners in public security". Its aim is to bring the police and the public closer together and have people learn about what the police do every day.

It is also an opportunity for all Canadians to salute the men and women who have chosen to dedicate their life to serving and protecting the public, often at the risk of their own safety. If we want to ensure order effectively in Canada, we must ensure that relations among all involved are solid.

Police men and women in Canada are doing a tremendous job and their accomplishments must not go unnoticed. I know that I have the support of this House when I say we in government recognize the dedication of our police forces across the country. We pledge our continued support and gratitude for the work they accomplish daily.

[Prisons, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious temptation by members of the Reform Party with this fiasco or the incidents which have occurred to give up on the institution.

We believe that this model of incarceration still represents the best approach in addressing a very special need that women have. This need has been identified both by the task force in 1989 and by the recent Arbour commission.

It would be prudent for us to learn from the incidents and make sure we put into the procedure the proper elements which would forbid and prevent any more security breaches in other institutions.

[Prisons, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the incident referred to by the member is before the courts. It would be imprudent for me to comment on it.

I will comment on the more general issue of security in the Edmonton institution. The incident is under review. All incidents, whether they are of violence or security aspects, are under total review. We are waiting for the report and recommendations from the committee. We will ensure that all those recommendations which have been reviewed will be in place.

In addition, over $400,000 in improvements has been approved, which was announced several weeks ago. Those improvements will take almost two months to put forth. We will ensure that before any inmates are returned to the institution, the full security review is complete.

[Provincial Jurisdictions, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister sent an important message to the 1,500 people who came to hear him, in Montreal.

The Government of Canada will take the opportunity provided by the upcoming first ministers' meeting to fulfil a major commitment made in its last speech from the throne and confirm the federal government's withdrawal from several areas that come under provincial jurisdiction.

Without going into specifics, the Prime Minister said that the federal government will first withdraw from the following sectors: mining, forestry, municipal affairs, ports and airports, as well as manpower training.

The Prime Minister said it in Montreal yesterday; our government will fulfil its commitments towards the provinces, and Quebec in particular. We can only hope that the PQ government in Quebec will accept our offer to become more involved in the process.

[Petitions, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by 372 people from Quebec who are asking the government to set national policies to control and contain the incidence of chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, and to ensure care, treatment, comfort and dignity for those afflicted with these illnesses.

[Risk Capital Funds, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in March, opposition members tore at their shirts in a public expression of disapproval of one of our budget measures aimed at reducing certain advantages accorded risk capital funds such as those of the FTQ or the CSN.

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois wondered at the time how Ottawa could justify, and I quote: "an attack against a tool as effective in creating and maintaining jobs"

Yesterday the Quebec Minister of Finance vindicated us in this matter, because he decided to follow our lead and cut some of the advantages accorded these funds.

This morning, the Bloc Quebecois members got off with having to stitch up their shirts. The federal and Quebec finance ministers decided in this area to harmonize their policies in order to reach an objective of fairness and justice for all investors.

[City Of Montreal, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, Montreal launched a promotional campaign under the theme "Montreal, you are my city".

This two-year operation was the fruit of concerted efforts by the City of Montreal, the Government of Canada, 11 private corporations, and the vast majority of local media.

This multimedia operation offers concrete proof that the climate in Montreal is changing and that all stakeholders will now work toward a common goal.

The hon. member for Outremont and Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec was happy to announce, on behalf of the Canadian government, a financial contribution of $1 million.

This is another fine example of this government's commitment to work in partnership with other socioeconomic stakeholders to improve conditions in Montreal and Quebec.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue is whether it is a moral issue or whether it is an issue of discrimination. I have conscientiously looked at all the alternatives. I have a family. I am

the father of four. I believe this is fundamentally an issue of discrimination.

As a practising Catholic I do not want to get into the debate of whether someone is more religious than another person. No religion tolerates discrimination. That is what the issue is. We are adding two simple words to the act and if we have differences of opinion on that I respect everyone's differences.

I am in the fortunate position today to be a member of this House. If it was my daughter or my son that was discriminated against, what would I want and how would I want my son or daughter treated?

I have a gay employee who has worked for me for the last 15 years. I have never had to put him in the back of the shop. Thanks to his contribution to my small businesses we have prospered.

When I talked to him at great length over it there is one question that he asked me that I could never answer and that convinced me. He said: "Why is it wrong for one human being to love another human being?" I have no answer for that and until I have an answer then I have to say discrimination is intolerable in our society.

That is the direction from which I come at it. I respect others who do not share that opinion, but it is for that reason I will be voting in favour of bill tonight. I thank the Minister of Justice who has put this initiative forward.