Laurie Hawn

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, just of interest, I was in Oslo, Norway when Chernobyl went up. We were kept in an underground bunker for an extra day at our NATO meeting because of that. It obviously was a terrible event.

My hon. colleague raises some valid points but he tends to focus on a doomsday scenario. However, in his last response he alluded to some reasonable limits, the $650 million being a reasonable limit, which is in accordance with most of the other people we deal with.

I would like to get the member's appreciation of the reasonableness of those limits based on the standards that are applied to nuclear facilities in Canada. It reads, “The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has concluded the process and mitigating systems required in the design of Canadian nuclear power plants rendered accident scenario with any significant release into the environment to be unreasonable”.

The Three Mile Island accident cost the U.S. $42 million, about $100 million in current Canadian dollars. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has also said that a worst case scenario accident would range from $1 million to $100 million based on the kind of standards we are talking about with Canadian technology.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague would comment on the protection provided by Canadian technology and how that marries up with some reasonable limits of liability.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to get in the way of my colleagues from the Liberals and NDP disagreeing, but I want to ask my colleague across the way a question.

We are talking about liability and risk management and all of those sorts of things. Is he aware and could I get his comments on the fact that in 2003 NRCan and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission contracted an independent firm to study an off-site impact of worst case scenario, design based accidents on two sites, Quebec's Gentilly-2 and Ontario's Darlington plant? That study said that the worst case scenario accident could range from a cost of $1 million to $100 million depending on the time period for the controlled release of radioactive material and so on. Based on that study we do seem to be within the bounds of the limits that are proposed under this bill. Could the member comment on that?

[Afghanistan, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing fuming in here is the rhetoric and exaggeration from the NDP.

Let me say one more time, we are taking this mission extremely seriously. We are the only government that is taking it as serious as we are. We have committed to the Afghan people. We have committed to our alliance. We have committed to the Afghanistan Compact.

We have appointed a panel to advise Parliament and advise parliamentarians on the way ahead. We will listen very carefully to those recommendations. All of those recommendations will be debated in Parliament. It will be Parliament that decides, including the members of the opposition. If they will just hold down the rhetoric and the exaggeration, we will get the job done.

[Afghanistan, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been clear. We continue to be clear. It was passed in the throne speech which was endorsed by the Liberals.

Building the capacity of the Afghan people to look after themselves is going to take a long time and there is no question about that. We believe it can be done by 2011 at the end of the Afghanistan contract.

As has already been stated, we have commissioned a very distinguished panel to inform members of Parliament. Members of Parliament will get to decide and debate it. The ultimate decision will come from this House.

[Government Contracts, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring the safety of our troops is the top priority for the government. We are assessing options to mitigate the shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan, a shortage that has been exacerbated by the fact that the NDP has opposed any defence spending in this area.

There are many NATO countries, including the UN, in Afghanistan, and several NATO allies, that are already contracting civilian helicopters. This is done in accordance with common practice, and we will ensure the safety of our troops in all circumstances.

[Old Age Security Act, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's proposal. I have a couple of questions for her.

Has this been costed out? What would this cost the treasury?

Also, she says this is such a wonderful idea, but the Liberals say the current law violates the charter. The law was ruled constitutional when the Liberals themselves fought to uphold it. I am interested in why there is this turnabout. It is simply a ploy to try to get immigrant votes on something they voted against before?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Afghanistan, the NDP is consistent. It will abandon Afghan women and children to the Taliban.

However, that is not what I want to talk to the hon. member about. He quoted some items on poverty. Many people in Canada are living in poverty and this government is committed to making a difference there. However, it is not helpful when the statements used are completely misleading and at complete odds with actual facts.

In its May income report, Statistics Canada revealed that Canadians at every level benefited from the positive economic conditions that have prevailed since the early 1990s. Before taxes, the richest 20% in the country make 13 times as much before taxes in income redistribution as the bottom 20%. However, after taxes and transfers, that gap is 5.6 times, which can be significant to the folks in the bottom 20%. I would point out to my hon. friend that in 1996 the gap was 5.6 times. It has not changed.

For the member to stand there and say that poverty is accelerating off the clock is absolutely untrue. I would like him to acknowledge the fact that it is his socialist roots that are making him mislead this House and mislead Canadians. Poverty needs to be dealt with but let us deal with it on the facts.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we will ask the questions around here. I do thank my hon. colleague for his response. It is a matter of legitimate debate as to what role the provinces play and what role the federal government plays.

Clearly, and this Prime Minister is no different, there is a strong role, and he has never strayed from that, for the central government in Ottawa. There is also a very strong role to be played in cooperation with that central government in Ottawa by the provinces in determining what is best for those provinces. There is some leeway. There is some overriding federal legislation, such as the Canada Health Act, on which all the provinces need to stay between the ditches.

Surely my hon. colleague would agree, or not, that the provinces should be in a position to deal with the federal government on, not necessarily an equal footing but a respectful footing, and that their aspirations that apply to their area of the country should be taken into consideration.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

It does not worry us at all.

Does the member believe that provinces, like Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan or any other, should be able to state their place in the country under the terms of the Constitution, which gives them the right to pursue things like health care, policing, pensions and so on, as the province of Quebec has done and as any other province has the right to do under the Constitution? Does he believe those rights should be taken away from the provinces?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's impassioned remarks about Canadian things and un-Canadian things. Apparently he does not believe in questioning how any particular part of the country should be allowed to fit in to the entire framework that is Canada.

He rhymed off some of the things that were mentioned in a letter that the current Prime Minister was one of five authors of in which the offending word was mentioned one time in the entire letter. People will get the impression that it was start to finish, firewall, firewall, firewall. The word was mentioned one time. The member acts as if he is doing the country a service by tabling this letter, which, of course, has been public knowledge for many years.