Pierrette Venne

[St. Hubert Technobase, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue said that the St. Hubert Technobase have been studied by an independent firm, which recommended the minister continue.

We learn that the Technobase investment fund is technically bankrupt and that, despite what the minister says, it is not such a good thing. We are entitled to know where the million dollars went.

My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Given the way the million dollar fund was managed, why is the Minister of National Revenue not investigating the administration of the Technobase?

[St. Hubert Technobase, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, according to the April 30, 2001 financial report of the Technobase investment fund, most of the companies in which it had invested no longer exist, have gone bankrupt or simply never located at St. Hubert.

In light of such a disastrous performance, does the Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec intend to demand a reckoning from the Technobase president, hon. Jacques Olivier, and its CEO, Clément Joly?

[St. Hubert Technobase, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in October 1997, the federal government launched an ambitious project to revitalize the St. Hubert military base, with an DND investment of $1 million. This revitalization project was to generate in excess of 1,700 jobs.

Could the minister of National Revenue explain why the millions invested for development of the Technobase have resulted in very few real jobs out of the promised 1,700?

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we all know very well there are requirements for confidentiality in the fight against terrorism. Does the minister not understand, however, that what we disagree with is her deciding alone on control of information?

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the deputy information commissioner stated in an interview that the anti-terrorism legislation could result in what he described as a “massive contravention of the Access to Information Act”. This statement is in line with that of the privacy commissioner, who expressed similar concerns last week.

When two commissioners express reservations as serious as these, is this not enough for the minister to realize and accept the fact that her bill warrants serious review and must include sunset clauses to limit the life of it?

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the definitions in the criminal code are sufficient to judge reprehensible acts that might be committed by overzealous demonstrators.

Will the minister acknowledge that the definition contained in the bill will make it difficult to distinguish between a mere demonstrator and a real terrorist?

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice informed us that Bill C-36 was carefully drafted to exclude lawful protests from the definition of terrorist activities.

Will the minister confirm whether or not she considers spontaneous demonstrations that have not obtained an advance permit from the appropriate authorities lawful protests?

[Terrorism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act provides, and I quote:

The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which could ... be injurious to... the defence of Canada or any state allied ... with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities.

How can the minister justify this arbitrary power, unless it is to sidestep the information commissioner and thus open the door wide to government censorship?

[Terrorism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says that the provision in the anti-terrorism act giving her discretionary power to withhold information from the public is necessary in the interests of national security.

How can the minister justify this provision, when the current Access to Information Act already allows her to withhold any record which could threaten national security?

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning we have been told that we must not change our way of living and that democracy must prevail because it is the best protection against terrorism.

How can the minister reconcile these reassuring comments with the provisions of the bill that seek to take the powers of the commissioner and the courts and transfer them to the attorney general alone, thus making the latter judge and jury regarding what the public should or should not know?