Dawn Black

[Development Assistance Accountability Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House today and support this bill from the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. The bill is a central part of the four goals of the Make Poverty History campaign which asks us to enact legislation to make ending poverty the exclusive goal of Canadian foreign aid in a way that is consistent with our human rights obligations.

I have received correspondence and visits from hundreds of people in my riding who support this campaign. I want to make it clear that I strongly support the international campaign to make poverty history.

One of my constituents, 14-year-old Sally, has written to me several times on this campaign. She has also written to the Prime Minister and has urged the Prime Minister to show true national and international leadership on the issue of making poverty history. In her most recent e-mail to the Prime Minister, she says that all the eyes of the world are on us and that she wants Canada to show real international leadership by increasing support for HIV-AIDS prevention and treatment programs in developing countries, investing in public health care in developing countries, promoting access to affordable medicines and cancelling the debt of the poorest countries. We should heed the words of Sally and show the world that we are determined to act to end world poverty.

Members in this House should be supporting the bill, which is very similar to Bill C-293 put forward by my colleague, the member for Halifax, who is our party's international development critic.

In 1969, Prime Minister Pearson authored the report “Partners in Development”, in which he put forward the idea of the government providing 0.7% of gross national product to official development assistance, as well as 0.3% of ODA coming from the private sector. Since then, several countries have met this goal, including Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Most recently, several members of the G-8 agreed to reach that goal, the U.K., Germany, France and Italy, but sadly Canada did not make that commitment.

The history of ODA in Canada is quite sad. We have never reached our goal of 0.7%. The highest was in 1974-75 at 0.53% and peaked again in the late eighties and early nineties. During the Liberal government's term in office from 1993 to 2005 it cut official development assistance in half from 0.44% to 0.23%, which is quite shocking. Incredibly, Canada rated 14th out of the 22 OECD members in terms of official development assistance as a percentage of our gross national income.

Something else disturbing that began under the Liberals was the first move toward redefining ODA so that it would include not just humanitarian and development spending but also military assistance as well. We now see, through what is happening in Kandahar, Afghanistan, how that is pertinent today.

We must guard against changing the definition of official development assistance. Changing the definition could allow the government to artificially inflate its ODA figures by including some money spent on national defence or foreign affairs, which has nothing to do with reducing poverty, and then deem that to be part of the spending on ODA.

The government should not be able to change the goals of development assistance at a whim. The commitment to reducing poverty must be put down in legal form to bind the actions of government. The bill would guarantee that official development assistance would be focused on poverty reduction, which is a good thing. This would ensure that Canadian money was used to fight not just the effects but also the causes of extreme poverty. The bill, therefore, would give real hope to those in poverty.

It is interesting that the Conservative government is opposed to this legislation, because in February 2005 the Prime Minister endorsed the idea of this legislation in a joint letter to the former prime minister which was also signed by the leaders of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. I will quote from this letter:

We are writing to urge you to introduce legislation which establishes poverty reduction as the aim for Canada's Official Development Assistance (ODA). A legislated mandate for Canada's ODA would ensure that aid is provided in a manner both consistent with Canada's human rights obligations and respectful of the perspectives of those living in poverty.

That letter was signed by the current Prime Minister of Canada. The Conservatives should honour the promise of their leader and they should support this legislation.

[Afghanistan, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, an issue was raised earlier in question period that I think really needs to be clarified by the Prime Minister. In his interview last night on television he stated that the mission in Afghanistan is making “a better military maybe, in some ways, because of the casualties”.

These remarks are disturbing and I really cannot believe that is what the Prime Minister intended. I really cannot believe that. Canadians mourn the loss of each and every soldier as an act of bravery, not as a benchmark of military improvement. Will the Prime Minister--

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2006]

With regard to government spending in Afghanistan: (a) what are the total expenditures of Canada's engagement in Afghanistan from 2001 to present; (b) what are the expected expenditures from now until February 2009; (c) what are the top 20 contracts by value; (d) which United States-based companies are receiving contracts?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2006]

With regard to the use of weapons in Afghanistan: (a) do Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan use depleted uranium (DU) in their weapons or armour; (b) do Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces in Afghaniston use DU weapons or armour; (c) do American or allied forces in Afghanistan use DU weapons or armour; (d) does Canada supply any other country with DU and, if so, what are the quantities; (e) does Canada supply any company, foreign or domestic, with DU and, if so, what are the quantities; (f) if Canada does supply DU to American companies who manufacture DU weapons, what proportion of DU weapons manufactured in the United States of America use Canadian-created DU; (g) does the government believe that DU is a weapon with indiscriminate effect; (h) does the government believe that DU poses any long term health effects in areas where it is used; (i) if DU is being used, does the government think that there is any possibility of future liability against Canada; (j) do CF in Afghanistan use White Phosphorus (WP) as an antipersonnel weapon; (k) do Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan use WP as an antipersonnel weapon; (l) do American or allied forces in Afghanistan use WP as an antipersonnel weapon; (m) have Canadian troops trained to use WP as an antipersonnel weapon in Afghanistan; (n) does the government consider WP to be a chemical weapon under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention; and (o) does the government consider that WP is banned under Protocol II of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2006]

With regard to the Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees with the Afghan government: (a) the Arrangement states that it applies “in the event of a transfer”, does the government intend to transfer all detainees to the Afghan authorities, or would Canada retain custody of some detainees or transfer them to recipients other than the Afghan authorities; (b) what is the scope of application of this Arrangement and does it apply to all Canadian troops operating in Afghanistan, particularly to embedded staff officers at Combined Joint Task Force 76 (CJTF-76) in Bagram; (c) do the embedded staff officers at CJTF-76 in Bagram in any way participate in the detention or interrogation of detainees by the United States; (d) how will the Arrangement operate when Canadian soldiers are engaged in a joint operation with Afghan soldiers or police, particularly Afghan Forces; (e) if an Afghan soldier or police officer physically apprehends a detainee or prisoner during joint operations, would it be considered a transfer and would the Arrangement apply; (f) does the government consider that the armed conflict, in which Canadian Forces (CF) are engaged in Afghanistan, is or is not an “armed conflict not of an international character”, as that phrase is used in Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention; (g) does the government consider that persons detained by CF under the Arrangement could be “prisoners of war”, as that phrase is used in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention; (h) does the government consider that persons detained by CF under the Arrangement are entitled to have their status “determined by a competent tribunal” as that phrase is used in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention; (i) if other articles of the Third Geneva Convention or its Additional Protocols apply to CF deployed to Afghanistan, whether by legal obligation or by Canada’s agreement, what are each of them, accurately enumerated; (j) upon detaining a person, will the CF always offer that detained person access to legal counsel; (k) does the government believe that CF detaining non-Canadian persons in Afghanistan must respect section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in so doing; (l) what is the government's position as to the possible criminal culpability of a Canadian soldier if he or she transfers a detainee into Afghan custody and that detainee does indeed experience torture as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Torture Convention, Criminal Code or Canadian military law; (m) does the government consider that this Arrangement guarantees that there will be no further transfers of detainees by the Afghan authorities into the custody of any other government without Canada’s consent; (n) why does the Arrangement not provide a right for the Canadian government or for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to monitor and inspect detainees after they are transferred to the Afghan authorities, as the government of the Netherlands sought and obtained; (o) why has Canada chosen not to develop and maintain its own detention facility in Afghanistan, or a detention facility operated jointly with either the Afghan government or other NATO states; (p) does the government consider the terming of the document as an "Arrangement" as affecting the document's legal weight; (q) how many detainees have CF transferred to the Afghan authorities since the Arrangement was signed; (r) has the Canadian government requested access from the Afghan authorities to any of the transferred detainees, to verify their well-being, and did Afghanistan agree to the request; (s) does the government consider that this Arrangement is a treaty, consistent with statements made by the Prime Minister as reported on May 13, 2006; (t) what are the personal details regarding the detainees that can be discussed publicly, consistent with the Geneva Conventions and other human rights obligations; (u) given that the Arrangement provides for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to inspect and monitor the treatment of detainees after CF transfer them to the Afghan authorities, does the government now consent to the ICRC sharing the results of these inspections on a routine basis with Parliament and the public; (v) when Canadian operations in southern Afghanistan are transferred to NATO control later this year, will a NATO-Afghanistan detainee transfer agreement supercede the Canada-Afghanistan Arrangement; (w) will the NATO agreement contain all of the rights of visit and notice found in the Netherlands-Afghanistan agreement, and, if not, why; (x) will the government make the NATO agreement available to Parliament as soon as possible, and, if not, why; (y) what additional procedures or safeguards do the CF apply when transferring a detainee who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18 to the Afghan military under the Arrangement; (z) has Canada detained anyone in Afghanistan under the age of 18; (aa) what additional procedures or safeguards do the CF apply when transferring a female detainee to the Afghan military; (bb) whether owing to ICRC inspections or any other source of information, is the Canadian government aware of any instances where a detainee transferred to the Afghan military was subsequently tortured or abused, and if so, what were the circumstances in each case; and (cc) did any government or representatives of any foreign government other than that of Canada and Afghanistan review the text of this agreement before its signature?

[Afghanistan, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, international pressure is mounting around the world to end this unwinnable war. The minister is only going to be able to ignore our questions for a very short time.

The government should start listening to people like Captain Leo Docherty, a former aide-de-camp to the British, who said that “we've lost the hearts and minds before we've even begun” or to Greg Mills, a former adviser to ISAF, who argued last week that no amount of firepower will defeat the Taliban and their allies. It is time to support our troops by bringing them home. The only question is, when?

[Afghanistan, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian women and men are being sent to Afghanistan to wage a war with no foreseeable end. Tanks and heavy armour have been ordered up even though the commander of the army said they would not be sent. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said we will be there until the Taliban is destroyed, yet the Minister of National Defence admitted there was no military solution to the insurgency.

When will the government refocus the mission and make strides toward peace and diplomacy, not war?

[Petitions, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my third petition urges the Prime Minister and the Canadian government and our Parliament to condemn the Chinese Communist government's regime and crimes against the Falun Gong practitioners, to stop mass killings and organ harvesting in China, and to expose what is happening there.

[Petitions, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition calls upon the government to urge the CRTC to decline the application of broadcast public notice from the CRTC proposing 9 TV channels directly controlled by the Chinese government, the Communist Party, and not allow them to be broadcast here in Canada.

[Petitions, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for giving me the time to do this. I have three petitions to present.

The first one calls on Parliament to hold, as soon as possible, extensive public hearings to gather information, expert advice and opinions from knowledgeable Canadians and Afghan citizens on how to best use our military and other forms of Canadian involvement in Afghanistan for the creation of a stable, democratic and self-sustaining state.