Dawn Black

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 2nd, 2006]

With regard to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan: (a) what is the allotment of money set aside in the fiscal framework for the remainder of the mission; (b) how does the mission effect the fiscal framework; (c) what new weapons systems have been purchased, or will be purchased for the remainder of the mission; (d) was there a M777 howitzer purchased for the mission in Kandahar and, if so, what was the cost of the system; (e) does the Canadian Forces use the Excalibur ordinance system developed by Raytheon and, if so, what is the unit cost per shell of the Excalibur ordinance system; (f) what is the added cost associated with the deployment of a leopard tank squadron; and (g) what are the project names and budgets, itemized by project, for each foreign aid project that Canada is financing in Afghanistan?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 2nd, 2006]

With regard to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan: (a) what is the goal of the Canadian presence in Afghanistan; (b) what is the strategy employed by the government; (c) what are the tactics that are being used; (d) who is the enemy; (e) what is the operational centre of gravity of the enemy; (f) does the government have a political strategy to attain its goal; (g) is terrorism the greatest security threat that Canada faces; (h) does the government consider that Canada is at war; (i) what is the condition that the government would consider to be “civil war”; (j) what does the government deem to be the nature of counter-insurgency warfare and does this condition exist in Afghanistan; (k) what Canadian Forces (CF) manuals deal with counter-insurgency; (l) what are the current rules of engagement for the CF in Afghanistan; (m) what has been the change in rules of engagement since Canada left Operation Enduring Freedom; (n) is the government aware of the presence of foreign fighters in Afghanistan who help the Taliban; (o) if there are foreign fighters where do they come from on the whole; (p) what is the opinion of the government regarding the security of the Afghan border with Pakistan; (q) what is the opinion of the government regarding Pakistani cooperation in achieving the objectives of the mission; (r) does the government have an opinion as to when the goals of the Canadian presence will be achieved; (s) when was the decision to deploy a combat mission to Kandahar made by the government; (t) how well are CF capabilities matched to the conditions in the southern region of Afghanistan and to counter insurgency; (u) what is the size and configuration of task forces available for use in Afghanistan through to February 2009; (v) what has been the effect of increased training throughout the forces on the capability of these task forces; (w) how has the training of new recruits been effected by the extension of the mission until 2009; (x) does the CF use dogs in combat missions; (y) what are the protocols used in relation to dogs and civilians and detainees respectively; (z) would Canadian lawyers be allowed to contact and represent detainees while they are held by CF and, if not, what legal authority or doctrine would justify this refusal; (aa) is the arrangement concerning detainees of December 18, 2005, still the current policy of the Department of National Defence following the handover of command to NATO; (bb) what reconstruction projects are underway in Kandahar province under the supervision of the CF; (cc) are there any plans to increase the size of the Provincial Reconstruction Team before 2009; (dd) what is the government position with regard to support by the government of Pakistan, particularly the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence for the Taliban; (ee) what is the length and nature of extra training that is provided for CF personnel going to Afghanistan; (ff) what is the number of enemy captured since the CF arrived in Kandahar; and (gg) has the CF engaged Al Qaeda fighters since moving to Kandahar?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 1st, 2006]

With regard to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan: (a) what is the number of Canadian Forces (CF) members wounded since the first deployment to Afghanistan in 2002; (b) what is the number of CF members permanently wounded; (c) when was the decision made to not bring the flag to half mast after the death of a soldier; (d) what is the process for making next of kin aware of casualties in the CF; and (e) what operational reasons would there be for any delay in making next of kin aware of casualties?

[National Defence, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the minister has chosen different versions to put forward. On August 24 the military denied that Leopard tanks would be deployed, “There are no plans to send tanks to Afghanistan”. The tanks are now on the ground in Afghanistan.

Before any CF-18s are deployed to Afghanistan, will the minister commit that he will stand in the House and deliver a ministerial statement informing the House of Commons and Canadians of any such action?

[National Defence, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on September 22 when asked if CF-18s were being prepared for deployment, the minister told the media, “I think I can deny it because no one's even brought it across my desk”. But yesterday the minister admitted that NATO asked for six planes, we signed a foreign military sales contract, paid the deposit and today the planes are ready to go.

I understand the minister has no plans to send them today, but what about tomorrow? Will the minister commit to tell Parliament and parliamentarians before he sends any CF-18s to Afghanistan?

[National Defence, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the chief of the air staff and the embassy in Washington were pretty sure that Canada would need CF-18s in Afghanistan, but the minister has indicated he knew nothing of the issue. Yet his department ordered up a million dollar, sole source contract to ready the fighter planes.

Earlier this year, we heard repeated denials that the Leopard tanks would be deployed, yet they were.

The minister has admitted he did not read his briefing book.

Is this just another example of the minister not really knowing what is going on in his department?

[National Defence, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has learned that the chief of the air staff had serious concerns about the emphatic language used to counter suggestions that Canada would be deploying CF-18s to Afghanistan. Internal emails state, “CAS is concerned that this statement has painted us into a corner for the future, if for instance, our allies who currently provide support pull out and leave...”.

Could the minister please explain why his generals were concerned by the categorical denial that CF-18s were to be deployed?

[Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the member opposite. We support the bill and we want to see it come to committee, but we do have some concerns. I have some questions and would like to hear the member opposite's opinion on them.

This will be a tool for our law enforcement agencies to deal with money laundering and terrorist financing, but there are still some concerns around the whole issue of foreign access to the information that we would like to see addressed. What does the member think of that?

We are also concerned that the bill would remove the obligation of the legal profession, of legal counsel, to file suspicious transaction reports. We see that as an important component of any effective money laundering legislation on organized crime. Could I also hear his opinion on that?

Canada's Privacy Commissioner has also expressed concerns that the act is intrusive in regard to some privacy rights, and has called for accountability structures to be put in place.

Finally, one of the issues that is missed in all of this and needs to be incorporated would be a process of civilian monitoring of the legislation and an agency.

Does the member opposite agree with those concerns and does he also feel there should be a civilian monitoring component to this legislation?

[The Environment, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, after 13 years in government, the Liberals left Canada with emissions 34% higher than 1990 levels when they should be 10% below to respect our Kyoto commitments.

Last week the Conservatives tabled legislation which even they concede will not reduce greenhouse gases or pollution for 15 to 20 years.

The communities I represent have been waiting for years and years for investment in public transit and infrastructure to address traffic congestion and improve air quality.

Front Street in New Westminster has some of the worst air quality readings in the country. Coquitlam and Port Moody have been promised rapid transit over and over again. Empty promises never fulfilled.

My constituents cannot wait. We need investment now from all levels of government to make our communities breathable and livable. Sadly, this Conservative bill is just more talk, hot air, no action.

[Afghanistan, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, transparent it is not. After my office went through the figures the government released last week, it shows that it claimed to have sent $13.5 million for Afghan development to the Aga Khan Foundation, but we know from CIDA's own website that only 8% of that money is going to Afghanistan.

The government claimed another $1.5 million were going to MEDA and yet only 6% of those funds will actually get to Afghanistan. That is only $90,000, not $1.5 million.

Why will the minister not stand in her place, admit the--