tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 10, 2015 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
>> we are way beyond that. more work needed in the oversight framework as lamar mentioned the presence of precision medicine and what that is. the third area is strengthening our ability to carey out the mission. mark couldn't be with us but talked about how important that is. we have a number of recommendations in the report relating to the fda's human resources and how do you hire people today. many require collaboration with hhs and the office of personal
management. we all know in government the hiring and firing and recruiting process happens in the legislatorive branch when -- legislati legislative branch needs to be investigated. we need to improve the publi public-private partnerships out there. and providing access to medical products and there is a government role and responsibility looking at the unmet needs that may not have a financial incentive for going there. the biggest, most important drug company in the world is not going there, scientist and researchers are not going there, but that is a specific role of government that the fda has a very important obligation
response ability. and another area, lastly, i will call attention to is the need to acc accelerate the development of something that affects everybody in the room and that is the use of antibiotics. we know super bugs are an issue. we know people are dying from it. it is created by our use of other antibiotics. we need to accelerate innovation to cure it, treat, and the fda needs to give special attention to the use of antibiotics with the super bugs. that is enough. i went on way too long. those are the four sections. read the report and we can talk more about similar sections as we go through. >> thank you, senator frist. as mentioned, there is a lot of
recommendations in the executive summary and what we have on the webite is the combination of things in cure we hope the senate moves forward with, things we would like to go further and one of them is around the use of real world evidence for post-and pre-market. and there a number of ideas not in the 21st century legislation. we have a nice, easy crosswalk for you. we will run through a couple topic areas. one that is important to us is about competitiveness of american companies. i wonder, representative gordon, if you might talk a little bit about that and how the reports improve the nation's competitiveness and the country. >> is this on? >> maybe you have to turn it on.
>> there you have. >> well, let me just speak up then. you think we are excited about this report? i think for good reason. the best thing for me to say is amen. but following senator's model when we worked on the america for pizza act we found after world war ii and the end of last century the united states led the world in all economic areas. we did that because of a simple formula. we invested in education having a skilled workforce and invested in research for new ideas, improved ideas and new services. and half of our gdp resulted from our investment in that research. so then comes this next century, and we are seeing a couple
things happen. our investments are starting to be stagnant or going down. and the rest of the world is increasing their investment. they read the book, they figured out what the secret was, and this is a quick example. in the area of rnd, in the pharmaceutical and medical device area, from 2007-2012 our share of the world's investment went from 50% down and asia went from 16% to 23%. so we have to get our competitiveness back again. we talk about putting more money into the pot and that is one aspect of it. but if we can get more yause of the money we are spending you get the same results. a couple important areas is
inter interoperability and i think in our report we give specific recommendations. and if you will see the government starts leading these areas, then that will be a market driver for other areas. another thing i think that is going to be important and we have a unique time to do this is looking at interoperability and harmionization and mutual acceptance. we just got through passing fast track. tpt is being worked on. t-chef is coming up after that. i think there are unique opportunities, whether it is through the agreement itself, or the vehicle to have these discussions to find out how can we have harmonization and mutual
acceptance. it takes ten years and $2 billion to get a new drug on the market. surely we can do better than that. >> dr. patrick, you have had a long history of developing and implementing new and innovative ways to battle cancer. the topic of precision medicine and one that is interesting and a passion for you. can you talk about advancements in the area and implications for fda? how does the fda need evolve given all of the advancements in science? >> i think the issue you brought up about precision medicine and the opportunity to have this as a bipartisan event is so fantastic in terms of the timing. what i would like to do is maybe lay out, i spent 30 years of my
life looking at this issue of cancer now as a problem, then leaving the university first nano particle for lung cancer. through that event, i laid out the problem that scales out as we age. we have lost the war on cancer because we went with the wrong assumption. i will explain how precision medicine can save us and the urgency of what we need to do. we always assumed as a nation and society that cancer was a single chrome that happens in yourself and the single chrome grows and you would kill it. so for 40 years we have been going down this path of single-drug of maximum tolerated
dose of chemo or radiation. it made sense if it was single we would try to kill it and save your normal cells by putting you through a horrible process hoping you come out with the chrome dead and your body alive. that assumption is made by a single mathematical calculation which in retrospect was in error that cancer cells grew linear. it turns out through next generation seck sequence there is thousands in the body. the body makes 10,000 cancer
cells a day but the body has a protection method from letting them grow. so 10,000 chromes discovered through next generation sequencing and this idea of zapping the patient with a tolerated dose has failed because it killed that one cancer cells and those asleep come awake. so we went down this path and in 1990, 25 years ago, i wrote the first paper on this very ancient cell we have in our body called the natural killer cells that floats around in the body protecting your body from infection, ebola, cancer, and if we could harness that cell and cause that cell to kill the
cancer you would find a new way in. but for 40 years we have been wiping out the same cell that is protecting us by giving us maximum tolerated dose of chemotherapy. there was a vaccine drug for breast cancer, a protein nano particle, and lung and pancriattic cancer and one of my jobs was to go explain to the hospitals of the world that we must stop this idea of maximum tolerated dose. i lost that argument, by the way. so i ran my own clinical protocol. so this is the wonders of america. i come from south africa as a physician and a surgeon and science. and that company became a multi-million company and i can
pursue this idea. we gave low-dose chemotherapy and we have patients alive all the way as far as eight years alive without the disease wold normally be dead in two months. so the challenge then is how do we now change that. once we acknowledge what we disb covered is one. let's do sequencing now. there are 13 million cancer survivors out there in the country. we can identify the sequence and know which chrome not to hit. you need low-dose multiple forms of chemo that will stress the system and you can inject that into the blood and reverse that.
tomorrow, we are going public. in which the natural killer cell we want to launch. most clinicians cannot understand the science meaning they need interoperable help too at the electronic medical record center. i came for 84 years and work that the $40 billion we would spend with electronic medical records. we are spending money on systems that will not talk to each other. a propriety system will not talk to each other. so you don't have the intelligence.
how could you treat a patient with two months to live with information that could affect his or her life in real time? that is what we have put in place. this is the opportunity through system. the next question is how does equipment take the capacity for every human being to have the sequence known in real time. to know which drug to give. it will be a combination of drugs. some owned by five different pharmaceutical companies. how will we regulate that? who is going to prove giving that combination deserves funding? these are the challenges that face us and this is precision medicine and i am happy to say this has been a forefront and we have the capacity to go do this. >> thank you, dr. patrick. before moving to q and a, mark, we have got a lot of recommendations in here about
integrating the voice of the patient and helping them with access to needed treatments. can you share about those and we will move to q and a after that. >> sure. thank you, janet. let me touch on two issues near and dear to what we all hope to accomplish. am i on now? all right. so, the national health council is an umbrella organization of the nation's leading advocating organizations. i want to speak to you in the audience and say that collectively the national health council members represents 133 million people with one or more chronic diseases. that is more than 35% of the population here in the united states. so raising your hands, how many have someone in your immediate family or circle of friends with a chronic condition?
raise your hands. that is why we are all here today. i want to talk to you about two provisions that have been put forward in the recommendations with the overwhelming weight of the recommendations being huge. it creates the environment for us to develop highly needed, high value treatments for all of the people we care about in our families. the first issue i would like to speak about is patient engagement. it is ironic. but we have created a system where everybody speaks for the patient. the doctor speak for the patient, the researcher speak for the patient, and they are the surrogate for what is important to us. their opinions are critically important. but when you ask them what is most important to the patient, and then you ask the patient,ia get a different answer. and it is ironic that we have built up a system that is created barriers to the bio
pharmaceutical sector and the regulators to actually engage the patient. for a bio pharmaceutical company to engage with patients, they could potentially be subjected to millions of dollars in fines for marketing an unapproved product. but everybody in the room has a smart phone. the developers of those products that you all have in your pocket would not change the color or feature of the phone without engaging the end-user first to understand how it would impact them. yet we don't do that in the development of medications. every major bio pharmaceutical company spent more than $2 billion developing a product, brought to market, and realized it didn't answer the appropriate
questio question. we are not invited to determine the research questions and when we are they go in a different way. we are not invited to determine what the patient reported outcomes should be. think about that. other people are deciding for us what are the most important outcomes. we should be part of that process. and there are great methods for doing this. we have a president who has been elected twice using these methods in the social sector. we don't use patients when we develop clinical trials and as a result we have a hard time p populating them and keeping people them in. huge opportunities to shorten drug time by having participants in the development of clinical trial protocols. we are not involved in the determining of cost and benefit. the judgment the fda makes on
risks and benefits is just that. a judgment informed by science but it ethically has the reflect the end user. it needs to be stratified to account for the individual patient's determination of benefit-risk, their tolerance for the disease, their tolerance for existing treatments. huge opportunities to get that information into the label that this is not a substitute for the current regulatory approval process. it is adding additional data that would go into the the labeling, come out at the back end, so that when i meet with my doctor and tell them what is important to me, they can determine from among multiply treatments which one will address what i want addressed. huge opportunity. huge consensus in the pharmaceutical sector. this is a huge opportunity for win, for congress to remove some
barriers and encourage the fda to move forward in changing the culture to make this a reality. the second issue i would like to address deals with insuring that treatments for unmet medical needs a developed. they were first alluded to this. legislation was introduced in the house with 90-cosponsors. senators bennett and hatch introduced legislation dealing with dormant therapies. most people know you don't develop a medicine without a strong patent, the less known factor is many treatments, potenti potenti potentially as many as 80% don't
qualify for a patent. if you look at alzheimer's and guarantee it will impact the progression of the disease, something all of us want, you need to have a clinical trial that will last 15 years because the development of the disease takes too long. for a company to invest $2 billion for a treatment for alzheimer's and only have a few years left to market it without generic competition means they abandon a promising product. we see companies leaving the autoimmune space, the prevention space in cancer, we have an opportunity to say, patent system works but we can provide an alternative pathway if you have a product that addresses an unmet medical need as defined by the fda and bring that forward. huge opportunities for the
senate to address huge issues for 130 million people with chronic disesases. >> thank you, mark. as we close the panel, senator, did you want to make closing remarks? where do we go from here? >> i think we heard senator alexander's charge to us. in additional step, we initiated this as i mentioned with dr. mcclellan about three and a half months ago being compared to
thank you, senator. we have this gentlemen here. and then if you could raise your hand. >> thank you very much. that was a terrific set of presentations. with so many questions, how do we determine what has the staying power and becomes an innovation we can use? it is my understanding that part of the political aspects of this edge legislation are like the
research for health and equality would be eliminated is a concern. so what is the mechanisms for determining what works well and what works best? >> let me give an answer that is just sort of the immediate reaction and turn to my two colleagues. there is no single-answer. the government approach of being able to analyze health services is not excusable to have any consideration of it disappearing. when 2.3 billion helped services and we have no way to evaluate that from a government standpoint i think you are right. i think the answer is it has to be all of us. not just the medical scientist. the political figures are the least to address it but they can be very effective listenors.
and the patients, mark can't represent them all, but represents just about all of them, and that voice, ultimately i think in this day and time will be the most powerful voice there. >> i liken this to a rural community i grew up in with no electricity and water which is common. most of my family died young and that is why i am a patient advocate. i had to go home and renovate the house. i didn't realize my mom wall papered the house, curtains up, carpet down, she was so good at
the wall papering you had to rub the wall to find the switch. but i realized no one was going to buy this house. our innovation eco system has not had a major update in 35 years. science has changed dramatically. the recommendations in this report go long and far. the cumulative impact is you get a renovated house you can sell for top dollar. that is what we need for our innovation ecosystem. >> please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> thank you to our leadership, cochairs and advisory committee. it is with great pleasure i
announce our next speak, senator michael bennet. since arriving in washington, he hasn't wasted a moment in the unrelenting fight to create good paying jobs for folks in colorado and restore fiscal responsibility to washington. he has emerged as an effective leader with a proven record of bringing people together and was a member of the bipartisan group of eight. four democrats and four republicans that introduced with a bill to fix the broken cystine and stregthen security and provide a fair path to citizens for millions of undocumented immigrants. senator bennet is an active member of the senate health committee and we talked about some of the legislation that you introduced, senator, today. and a wonderful advocate for medical innovation.
please join me in welcoming senator bennet. [applause] >> i appreciate it. i am a little hesitant to read one of these notes at the end of the long day you have had. let me start by saying to senator frist we would be happy to have you back any time you would like to come back to the united states' senate. it has been an unbelievable couple days and continues to be. i might stay with you because i think we are not voting until ten tonight so i will be happy to fill in the time between now and then. i want to come back and congratulate the bipartisan policy center on the release of this report advancing medical innovation for american. i know senator alexander was here earlier today and he has done an astonishing job leading the health committee. he and patty murray, the ranking
member, came another around the time of no child left behind. a bill we were supposed to pass seven years ago before i was in the senate. lamar and patty were able to lead the process on the health committee that resulted in a unanimous vote, after all of that, to reauthorize no child left behind. when rand paul and bernie sanders are both members of your committee and you get a unanimous vote you are doing something right. that gives me hope going forward. all of you know, and the reason you a here, this is a critical time for the science sector. the first genome was $3 billion to sequence before and now we can do with a thousand. the pace of what we are learning is moving much faster and we
need to update and reform the regulatory structure in order to address 21st century innovation, and in order to address the 21st century economy we have. we cannot raise venture capital they told me five years ago. it seemed like a challenge to the desire of holding on to high paying jobs. senator burr and i from north carolina went to work together wi wi with chairman alexander and ranking member murray to change the fbi. and that bill, that came along with senator hatch, resulted in 25 breakthrough therapies.
almost half of the drugs appr e approved by the fda came through that route. a few more of the areas we are working on across the aisle are recommended in the bc report and i appreciate you putting them there. senator hatch and i introduced the med tech act that will bring certainty around medical software, apps and health it. i said on the clear rules of the road, leading software and medical device companies as well as consumers will have a better reputation if the cutting-edge products are needed. senator hatch and i where working on the path act that will provide more certainty for
companies in the approval of antibiotics. the cdc estimated two million americans become sick from antibiotics related infections and 23,000 of them die. particularly difficult for the wounded warriors who come in contact with pathogens that we cannot find. under our bill, they will be able to provide them to the limited population that needs them. our focus should be i am giving fda and life science companies clear rules for the road that sees the investment in the private sector. it is a sector we lead above all countries in the world. it is economic issues in the
innovation issues. we always have found a way to thread through craziness of washington, d.c. and get something done for the people in my case colorado but all across the united states. [applause] >> question for the senator. >> i come from boston. before i came in, i was in the second floor elizabeth warren
and another gentlemen there talking about the national institute of health. we are going to need more help when we get assignments or other type of sickness. so thank you very much for inviting me. thank you very much for being here. and i would like you to give me the answer about the particulars >> you said your name is caroline? >> i have a caroline who is 15 and camping in the mountains of company. this is a constant struggle for two reasons. one has to do with across the
board cuts in the sequestration which by the way was the result at 2:00 on i think new year's eve in the senate. it was 92-38. i was one of three democrats who voted against it because i don't think the cuts are a national approach to governing. i think we cut a terrible deal for america. it was terrible because 90 days later the sequester went into affect. we have to get into a place where we are establishing priorities and funding them and treating the budget like it reflects the values. the second part is we have to recognize there are people who believe there is no legit function for the federal government. they believe nih is a place with no legit function of the government. i don't think that is what most republicans or democrats believe. but there is a handful of people
that believe it thinking it is a bolstering institution. if it is federal and investing in basic research and science they think that. i can tell you, we are at risk, it is happening in my state, of loosening a generation of alzheimer's researchers because of our inability to have the nih be able to fund the institutions across the country as they once did, through grants, which are totally unpredictable now. it is another instance where the cartoon version, my words not yours, of what the founding fathers wanted us to be is getting in the way of the real world stuff we need to get done. i have people coming to see me every year to see we need nih fully funded.
we have to find a way to overcome it and i think we will. there is a strong sense among republicans this can't continue. >> i a science background. i left the lab because i was frustrated with the way research was going done. i agree nih should be fully funded but should be funded in a smart way. there is a lot of research collecting data and seeing how the medicine will affect the
body and identify new patient and treatments. i think that is a point of interest for me and others. 92% of drugs fail in trials for several reasons. some because they show a lack of efficiency going from clinical to human trials and new toxic i toxicities that were not shown before. >> i will let the people that know what they are talking about answer that. >> i would just say one of the things we need to think about is as science changes and the innovation happens, and the
velocity of change is moving faster and faster and faster which it is, it is unclear to me that washington's regulatory apparatus, including the fda, is going to be up to the task of keeping up with the innovation. i am not coming with a policy recommendation. it is just an observation when you look at this, among other things, this kind of power we didn't have a decade ago to decode the genome. how will we keep up with what the risks are? i have to slip out of here. thank you for having me and all of your work. >> thank you, and thank you for joining us today. we look forward to continuing the conversation.
national black forum. here is a preview: >> they are passing all kinds of laws to disenfranchise our community to stop the people to the polls, voter id, put the police officers at the voting polls to intimidate us and stop us from voting. at the national bar association, we are focused on challenging them and we are not concerned about our corporate sponsorship or status because the fundamental right in america is the right to vote and vote for the prosecutor and we get confused with the presidential vote and think that is the most important vote. you go to the court house, the most important vote in many instances is the da.
you talking about jury duty? the vote in jury duty, just one person being in that book room, just one person, if all we got is six in the same room they have 12. but one african-american with the courage to say i am going to be on this juror and answer every question and be fair and go back in that room and decide the fate of this young black person today makes all of the difference in the world. because it really counts when you are on jury duty. >> watch that event and its
entirety beginning at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. leaders of four canadian parties participated in a debate last week. the 2015 election for the federal house of commons is scheduled for october 19th. ahead of that election, prime minister and conservative party leader, steven harper and the leaders of the liberal, green and new democratic parties were asked to respond to a variety of questions including the economy, the keystone pipeline and the u.s. effort to defeat isis. the longest election campaign
unemploy unemployin modern history has begun. i am paul wells and surprised by all of this. we have the leaders of four national political parties in one room. we don't know if that will happen again before you vote. but while they are here let's make it work. we have the leader of the liberal party. elizabeth may the leader of the green party. the leader of the new democratic party and steven harper the leader of the conservative party. tonight's debate will cover four broad subjects at the top of voter's minds: the economy, energy and the environment, the state of canada's democracy, and foreign policy and security. each question begins with
questions from me to a leader. another leader responds to the first and then an extended discussion among all leaders. we determined a random speaking order. everybody knows the order but no body has seen or heard the questions i will be asking tonight. the parties have agreed that at any point i can intervene to direct the conversation. so let's begin with our first topping, the economy. >> this is one subject of over voter's mind as the election approaches. >> we have dangerous economic winds flowing in candidate. >> the economic health of the country is shaking. >> exports are weak. >> what ottawa's proper role in the economy is? has canada's wealth been
distributed? that is the context of our conversation. >> and as the luck of the draw would have it, the first question goes to the liberal leader. canadians are feeling anxious about the economy. it shrank in may for the fifth month in a row, manufacturing is hurting and the price of oil is down. your plan is built around a middle class tax break. isn't that enough of a response given the problems you say canada is facing? >> one thing we have seen for ten years the approach mr. harper has taken has not worked for canadians. he has chosen to give opportunities and tax breaks to the wealthiest canadians in the hopes of creating growth. that is not happening and knows to the hart of the question.
is steven harper's plan working for you? he took a decade of deficit and turned it into eight of them. we just found out wages are falling. you may not feel that in all places but i know you at home do. that is why we put forward a plan to support growth through strengthening the middle class. we are the only ones committed to lowering tax for the middle class by asking the wealthiest >> a lot of people, economist, are saying median income is going awry since 1990. do you have a solution to problem that is not there?
>> not at all. if you spend time crossing the country as i have, talking to people worried about saving from a their own retirement, or having to make choices between their own opportunities and paying for their kids' education, people are worried for the first time we have a generation of young people who will not do better than the previous generation. we need solutions for that. the only risk is sticking with what has been a failed plan. >> thank you, mr. trudeau. the first to respond is harper. >> over the past ten years, in a period of unprecedented economic instability, we have seen since the great global financial crisis, canada has the strongest economic growth, strongest job
creation and income growth for the middle class among many of the major developed economies. over 80% of our economy is growing. in fact, non-energy exports are up 10% this year. we have weakness in the energy sector because of the fall and energy prices. but we will have growth this year and growth going forward. you deal with this by sticking with a plan that is working. low tax. rather than go to plan of high taxes and high debt and deficits which is failing everywhere else. >> the vocab used to describe your opponent's plan is grave. you compared candidate liberals to greece, called the tax increases that were introduced in alberta a disaster.
did they have that affect? >> the other parties are proposing tens of billions of permanent spending to be fina e financed by higher taxes. countries in that position have not recovered from the recession and are stagnating. this country has had the best performance of major economy going forward. >> tom nulcair, what do you think about these issues? >> on mr. harper's watch we lost manufacturing jobs and 200,000 more unemployed today than when the crisis hit. mr. harper's plan is not working. incomes are flat lining and
household debt is sky rocketing. we want at a give a break to small and medium size corporations. mr. harper and trudeau think tens of billions to the wealthiest companies are the way to go. we disagree. we want to create child care centers as well. >> we were the two there and mr. harper was going to talk about if there was going to be a recession wouldn't we been in one. we are in a recession now. we have a weak and declining economy. it is the wrong time for prosperity measures. we need to built canada up through investment. there is no investment going on. not from the private sector who is sitting on $630 billion of
what is being called dead money. if we stay with mr. harper's plan we are headed for trouble. >> we have 1.3 million jobs created since the financial crisis. the best record in the g-7. that is why incomes are rising across the board and have been rising. that is why we have manufacturing and other sectors outside of energy that are expanding because we have a balanced budget and are able to invest in infrastructure. now is not the time. >> the reality is canadians across the country know times are tough. the fact is you have become disconnected from the reality people are casing across the country. your plan isn't working. the risk is sticking with our
plan. mr. nulcair is good in criticism of you and questions but not good at answering your questions. he put plans forward for a $15 minimum wage. he is misleading canadians and giving the workers in the box stores and behind check out counters and in shops and coffee shops false hope. his minimum wage plan will only help less than 1% of every canadian who earns middle wage and that false advertising is not responsible. >> under our plan for the $15 an hour federal minimum wage, over 100,000 candidates get a raise. under mr. trudeau's plan no one. well paid manufacturing jobs
lost during mr. harper's tenure. it is not just the ndp saying that. but canada's leading bank said the quality of jobs being created is at the worst level in a full generation. this is the facts from statistic canada. 90% of the new jobs created are full time. 80% private sector. two thirds in high wage industry. that is why incomes are growing in this country when they haven't in others. plans that want to increase taxes, a hit of a $1,000 for every working making $60,000 and another hit if they want to keep the employer on the pay roll. >> mr. harper, you have chosen
to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67 which is taking tens of thousands of dollars out of the pockets of the most vulnerable seniors, you refuse to engage with the pension security at ontario and other provinces are asking for. you continue to give benefits and tax breaks to the wealthiest canadians. canadians need help from the government and that is why we are trying to strengthen the middle class with a benefit for the children and stop sending checks to the millionaires which is what you want to do and mr. nulcair agrees. ... we have brought in the largest increase of the guaranteed income supplement for poor income seniors in 25 years. we brought in income for pensioners. mr. trudeau: mr. harper that is
simply not true. paul -- mr. harper -- he has been putting that out and misleading attack ads and none of the other parties have ever talked about touching income -- mr. harper: you have promised to take it away from families who generous income splitting -- there is no reason -- ms. may: >> with all due respect, you are cherry picking your data. net new jobs is an indicator of the health of our economy isn't relevant when comparing to other g7 nations unless you correct for population growth. impairing as to germany with you don't have -- compared to other economies in the g7 we are doing very poorly indeed. we are in a recession under your watch for the second time track
by the fact we can bring in immigrants, that is part of our economic action plan. investment in infrastructure and innovation and an immigration to help drive our economy. that's why we have better results. may: we had net job loss in july. >> what mr. harper fails to make it is run up a deficit in a row. is added $150 billion to candidates that -- canada's debt. last week in just one day he spent over a billion dollars to honestly mr. harper we really can't afford another four years. harper: we have a budget that is balanced now and other countries don't. >> moderator: that wraps up the first round of questions on the economy. we are only half done on the subject of them. the next question goes to ms. may from the green party. ms. may, the green party's
policy calls for transmission of the canadian economy from resource exports, the high value added business. that's a long-term project. candidate is facing trouble right now. but can the federal government do now to reanimated economy? factory we have to bear in mind and keep in context the oil sands from 2% of our gdp. we've got a lot of economic activity. the prime minister's right. we are seeing sectors to rebound. are dollars shouldn't keep decline. we can't just sit back and think the current stagnant economy will fix it so. we need investment, investment, public sector, invest in a climate action plan. we need an army of carpenters, electricians and contractors going up to plug leaky buildings. that's 30% of cargo pollution comes from energy we waste and the money we waste heating the outdoors in the winter included in the summer. we also need to invest in municipal infrastructure.
that deficit is $122 billion. we need to get at it as our bridges and roads are crumbling. >> moderator: can you recruit your army of carpenters without jeopardizing budget balanced? traffic in the scheme of things, need to train dollars economy, which is a with all due respect to the prime minister. we will not see a balanced budget this year. the parliamentary budget office put out its new figures i wouldn't condemn them. in my pre-budget advice i said really this fixation on balancing the budget is being driven by the political imperative that the content is created by saying we'll keep you all these goodies once we balanced the budget. this year they monkeyed with the budget, put out april 21 not because they need to know where oil was going but because they wanted to book the sale of the general motors shares in the next fiscal year. we sold 73 million shares in general motors. was that a good choice? i don't know by fiddling with the books so that should in this
years budget to help take a balanced and in the price of oil keeps dropping. we are not going to see a balanced budget. it's far more serious than $150, $150 billion of federal debt has been accumulated under the prime minister. >> moderator: thank you, ms. may. the first there to respond to tom mulcair. mulcair: either concrete plan that helps the middle class. we are going to invest in infrastructure progress toward municipalities and local governments to some 60% of the costs for infrastructure with only 8% of the tax base. we will reduce small business taxes because they are responsible for creating 80% of new jobs to we'll put our effort instead of a mr. trudeau and is mr. harper done to the tens of billions of tax cuts that they both agree on to our largest corporations. we will champion manufacturing and innovation including green energy technology would represent a $5 trillion investment over the next 15 years around the world.
we are not part of the because mr. harper doesn't live in a positive role for government in debt. we will help the middle class because it is good for families and good for the economy. 1 million, $15 a day quality childcare spaces across canada spent the challenge is about creating growth. one of the things that so concerning that mr. mulcair's corporate tax hike is it the time in recession when we need more growth. we need more investment, we need to create more jobs. is plenty like corporate tax is simple. he is pandering to the people who like to make corporations. we need that growth, those job creation. you write that money does have to come from somewhere ever going to invest and strengthen the middle class and that's why can't quite understand what mr. mulcair has rolled out doing what we're doing which is asking the wealthiest 1% to pay more tax so we can get a big tax break to the middle class.
mulcair: out of the tens the prince of tax cut for the richest corporation from where other jobs if that such a good plan? on the question of personal income tax increases, we are firmly opposed to the. look any problems like new brunswick. they will have a tax rate of 58 points 75%. new brunswick does have a medical faculty. how can they attract and retain top level medical doctors when they're going to be told our tax rate is not going to be close to 60%? we think that canadians are parent -- paying their fair sure. canada's largest corporations are not and does they will bring up the text slightly. may: absolutely right. we cut those corporate taxes he said these corporations were in his words the job creators. they sat on the money. that's what market called it a dead money. $630 billion in cash, an astonishing 32% of canada's gdp
is sitting stagnant. not have been used. it's absolutely appropriate to raise the corporate tax rates about what was in 2009. will be competitive within oecd countries and we should quickly as possible threat money to invest in getting the economy moving again and. harper: let's be clear, paul, on the tax record first of all. yes, we have created the lowest tax environment for business investment across the g7. that's one of the reasons why we have the strongest employment growth in the g7. we cut taxes not just a big business but many times for small business and the ndp voted against that every single time. the reality is not only did thesthetax cuts help create jobt our tax revenues went up from the business sector. we've done the same thing for people. we've cut taxes across the board with a vast bulk of those tax breaks are middle to low income canadians. the other guys want to do is opposed of on workers and
unemployed big hikes to payroll taxes, taxes, ei taxes, those things which jobs and hurt our ordinary people try to mr. harper is issuing the responsibility that he has perfect he is the successor deficit. we are right now the only g7 country in recession and wages are shrinking. he continues to try and to people that we need to stay the course. people at home know that. know that we are not working, this economy is to working for them. we need an approach that understands the way to greater growth in the canadian economy is to strengthen the middle class to make sure people have jobs and confidence and the capacity to spend and be sure about the future that they're building. mr. harper has continued to give tax breaks to the wealthiest and that's not actually stimulated or help our economy in anything. that's what canada is growing less and less fear and that's what we need to focus on because canadians right across the country are looking for a better
approach and that's exactly what the liberal party is putting . harper: we have the lowest debt levels in the g7 by a country mile. by far, by far the best fiscal situation going forward. and a loose -- [talking over each other] harper: in almost every other country the rising and rising in significant part because of the tax breaks we've given to middle and low income canadians, that the opposition parties have consistently voted against that you want to reverse. mulcair: back in 2008 mr. harper was misleading. he said we were not in recession. that turned out we were in the worst recession since the 1920s. he's trying to hide the fact that we are in a deficit again. every outfit analyst agrees with it. the parliamentary budget officer or scatter, but. it is a deficit.
it is $150 billion. mr. harper's job creation record is the worst since the second world war. harper: clarification on the fact. the reality is the figures from the department of finance show so far this year we are substantial in surplus and well ahead of our budget projection and those are the real numbers under debt levels are way below mulcair: you are trying to deny the fact for the past five but those same statistics from the canadian government have shown that for five but in what the canadian economy has shrunk. we are one month away from a technical definition of recession but according to a lot of observers we already in a recession. harper: i'm not denying that. what i'm saying is that the contraction -- [talking over each other] harper: the rest of economy is going to its projected to grow this year and into future years.
the way to handle a fall in oil prices if not tens of billions of dollars of increased taxes, increased warming and increased spending. that's a country give them something to serious long-term trouble. may: you made a promise in the speech in 2007 that you would tackle the barriers to trade and labor mobility within this country as an economic union. it's squarely responsibility. usages go to the trade and commerce clause in the constitution if needed and that he regards the country. we have more barriers to trade within canada and the 20 nation-states of the european union. y. over this period of time? where is your plan? [talking over each other] >> moderator >> it's just a show leadership. we have a federation the needs people to sit down, talk about taxes, berries, talk about climate change, talk but how we could help canadians get ahead in an uncertain economy.
he has simply refused to engage with provincial leaders whether it's on trade barriers, climate change, training and job creation and that's not the leadership a broad and diverse country like canada needs from a prime minister. [talking over each other] harper: the premiers and the federal government are working together on breaking down trade barriers. we have in the west partnership we made significant progress in that area but more importantly and our government we've increased the number of countries with which we have concluded trade deals provide affordable with entire european union much of the hemisphere and now a foothold in asia. no government has opened up trade opportunities for canadian companies and canadian workers like this government. mulcair: stephen harper is the only prime minister in canadian history who, when asked about the recession during his mandate
kids to say, which one? he's just admitted that we've had five months of negative growth in a row and just a lot of experts say we already are in recession. we want to spend our time concentrate on creating jobs for canadians. what we are saying tonight is you can do it in you can't hang onto your job. i'm going to do everything i can to great jobs transfer with all due respect a foothold in asia was to sell us down the river our national sovereignty. you got this country without a single set of hearings in parliament through a trade, not a trade deal. and investment trad treaty witha that binds us until the 2045. we can get out of it. we need to insist on transparencies because they she mobility over the shoulder of the next prime minister and telling us what laws we can pass. >> moderator: with great regret we have to leave this session. this concludes our first round on the economy. will continue after this break to please stay with us.
♪ ♪ >> on toward martin now. "maclean's" debate returns in three minutes. right now we're coast to coast with canadians reacting and analyze to what is being said tonight and what isn't. a live look right now at st. john's, newfoundland, were students had gathered to watch the leader to face off. for now we move west to tammie sutherland garnering reaction on key issues that leaders were just discussing, jobs. tammie? >> i'm here at toronto's seneca college we've been watching the debate with some of the school's journalism students. they been scrutinizing some of the key issues when it comes to pertain to the country's youth. one of the big issues is at the difficulty in a job. we are joined now by angelie sood, a student.
tell me about some of the concerns that children students on campus when it comes to jobs. >> speaking with students tonight in attendance, the big issue is a jobs. we want to make sure after spending so much money and so much time, investment honor education that there's a return. we want a job after this i want to we can at least make a dent in her student loans. what's the minimum wage going to be? do we have a fighting chance? >> postsecondary education of course and loans is another issue as well. >> may be workshops after you finish her formal training is an opportunity for extra growth because thanks so much. send it over to roger was staging a debate on facebook. >> we want to get involved on facebook. kevin, thanks for joining us. we been asking questions online. first poll results are intended to people feel should be the leader of the country? >> we open up all but the very beginning of the debate. 50% of the people who have taken our poll on facebook supporting
mr. mulcair. >> this is all happened since the start of the debate? >> correct. this is early days for the election but early days for the debate as well. we will see over the course of the debate whether or not these numbers shift. >> looking at other polls throughout the evening. >> we look unfairness deeper dive issues of economy, energy, environment, how to canadians on facebook feel about these things of which leaders are best represented on those issues. >> we can gauge this action instantly on facebook. facebook.com/mclain and will be asking questions with lots going on. are you surprised by what you sing just with this number? >> this is early, before anybody's heard the debate and talking to be interesting to see what we see over the course spent thanks. we'll cut you off into the back to the "maclean's" debate with a live look at canadians to meet
him. now back to the debate. ♪ >> moderator: welcome back to the "maclean's" national leaders debate. our second segment will be on energy and the environment. >> two years ago the conservative cabinet minister joe oliver called on experts and urgent matter of candidate national interest. since then the two biggest pipeline projects, keys to excel and northern gateway are stalled. >> we are glad this is on delay. >> it's almost been four years spirit of the kyoto article is not for the solution. >> what's the proper trade off? cancan afford to clean up its act? can canada afford not to?
♪ ♪ >> moderator: our first question on this topic goes to stephen harper. using primers for a decade. you want to be a different primers on energy exporter joint candidate to be an energy superpower. major export projects with united states and china installed on your watch. what if you achieving energy exports that beats the records of your predecessors? harper: exports have increased not just into recently not just our oil and gas exports in the united states but we have also seen increase in uranium exports, coal exports and others jewish or i would say this, paul. the federal government does not build pipelines. we favor seeing a diversification of experts but we establish an environmental assessment process. companies had to go to the and they are going through that process. in terms of the keystone pipeline as you know that the
situation under control of the united states. i've had many conversations with president obama. is not asking candidate do anything. using he was to make a that's in america's best interest. overwhelming public support on both sides so i'm optimistic about the future of the project train with you simply think we need to wait for a newt president? harper: the reality is there's overwhelming public support and the united states including in congress on both sides of the aisle. i am conflict in the field whoever is the next president i think will approve that project very soon, have you found this to be frustrating? in the intro called the nordic it would project and urgent matter in canada's national interest. three years after he said immigrants until filled. harper: the project went through a rigorous a private assessment with time limitation. the assessment recommended some 200 conditions on the protest.
we approve the project subject to this condition. it's up to the proponent difficult of conditions and that's how the system works and what could have been a price on carbon, would obama have approved keystone xl by no? harper: absolutely not. the president has never said that to me. on the contrary is told and what factors will influence his decision. his own evaluation of the united states best interest. let's remember the united states has not even agree jet to the greenhouse gas emission regulation on their own oil and gas sector. >> moderator: the first respond to you on this is elizabeth make traffic with all due respect your record on climate is a legacy of let me of broken promises including one that's irrelevant to the question that paul was asking about exports. you commit in 2008 not to export unprocessed oil bitchen and the weaker emissions standards in canada would include china.
the destination point which of the green party on this stage but most of it makes sense to export on this with poor environmental record. you committed to bring in a north america wide cap-and-trade program which with partners. that was way back in a speech from 2008. you commit to oil and gas rates which we would see by 2010 and also personally went to copenhagen and was in a previous promise to you and copenhagen and committed to what was i had to say every week target but we are not going to come anywhere near it by 2020. there's just no credibility at this point. candidate needs to take action. were having a summer of extreme drought, raging wildfires and consider whether throughout all of our season. canadians want action. candidate needs to take action so we can defend ourselves from the changing global climate and some impact economically at
home. trudeau: what he is misunderstood about what happened in the 21st century this you cannot make a choice between what's good for them private and what's good for the economy. mr. harper continues to say we can do anything on you by because we were economy. not only has enough helped our environment but he's slowed our economy. he cannot get a exports to mark because there is no public trust anymore. people don't trust this government to look out for our long-term interest. he hasn't convinced communities of his pipelines other proposals he supports. he hasn't been working with first nations, kinds of partnerships that are needed are going to continue to develop our national resources. canada will have an element of natural resources and our economy but the job of the prime minister is to get those resources to market and in 21st century that means being smart and responsible about environment. mr. harper's inability to understand that is exactly why
he's struggled to get our economy going in the right way. harper: let's be clear. not only to retake both economy and if i but seriously, we are the first government in history to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also going out economy. how have we done that? we get to a sector by sector revelatory approach when we regulate absolute reduction in emissions and we do so in ways that we know will not kill jobs and will not burden -- [talking over each other] a carbon tax that would hit ordinary workers and consumers hard. may: by cutting our environmental laws somehow you can get our energy resources to market better. how is that working out, mr. harper? none of the projects is gotten off the drawing board and not hard to understand why. mulcair: canadians want a clear, thorough, credible environmental
assessment or candidate can be a leader around the world. we can play a positive role but with mr. harper we've got the worst of all worlds. dirty air and water, more carbon pollution and we are elaborate on the world stage. may: the only way with all due respect, the only way you can take credit for the emissions drop which only occurred in 2008 and 2000 is the global financial crisis if that's your thing that brought down our emissions. they would've got that much more than it is not the action of ontario in shutting down coal-fired power plants. the cold and cruel reality is that under your watch greenhouse gases have been rising, carbon pollution has been rising us as our economy began to recover in 2009. straight out of line. harper: greenhouse gas emissions have actually gone down and the economy has actually grown. those are the facts. mr. mulcair says the project are going nowhere.
no, they are in environmental process that is going forward. we make sure we look at the process to make decisions. the problem is the other parties have taken positions depending on who they're speaking to a mr. trudeau's case, against every single one of these projects. not just oil but in british columbia, natural gas project. they oppose the government. tax incentives to liquefied natural gas that is supported not only by the british columbia interest, and a broad cross section . may: with all due . trudeau: continued to indent the text and canadians are tired of that leadership. of that leadership if you haven't been able to get done on a vibrant, mr. harper. you have encountered in an economy. you have built the kind of balance decades expect. if we can build strong communities, create jobs or our children grandchildren while protecting our air, water, land, which actually show leadership. you have stepped -.
harper: mr. trudeau, under the government they were up 30%. [talking over each other] >> moderator: mr. harper, will canada be the target that you would to copenhagen to set for 2020? harper: as you know what happens, we will but withou witw are focusing on the 2030 target. that's what every countries do. we set a target in concert with international partners. look, we're going to have to be more regulation. we're committed to do that. we've announced that there will have to be technological transformation. that's why we are investing over $1 billion a year in energy technology projects. that's what has happened. spitting your minister at the time was promising regulation. when are they coming? harper: i think what this is the integrated north american sector and we need integrated north american regulation.
i made the proposal both the united states and mexico. haven't yet accepted that but we are ready to go and continue to try and -- [talking over each other] >> he actually was all about announcing a north american energy partnership. he was going to work with candidate and that was eight years ago and nothing has happened since. when obama just announced recently landmark legislation moving forward on climate change action, canada is the work to be done. that's what the liberal party is proposing we work on a continental model with the united states and mexico to address both energy and the environment in a comprehensive way. >> moderator: there's a bit of a paradox because it sometimes something to say they were the right price on carbon, the right social license would have pipelines going his and john. but what if a new is no thanks, doesn't matter which government [talking over each other] tranten the reason why they're so concerned about canadians
vote is because mr. harper has turned the oil sent into the state, around the world for climate change. he has put a big target on oil sands which are going to be an important part of our time for a number of years to come of the widget to get beyond them. is lack of leadership on the environment is hurting canadian jobs in canadian relations with other countries. mulcair: getting our resources to market is critical. but mr. harper has gotten the balance wrong. he has guided our legislation and he knows that is hurting jobs in the resource sector, hurting our economy and, frankly, hurting canada's international reputation. building on my experience as an environmental minister when i brought in develop the legislation i would enforce of that type of legislation, make polluters pay for the push of a great. these projects would give look at what they thorough and credible environmental assessment process.
mr. harper a mr. trudeau both agree with keystone xl which represents the export of 40,000 jobs. i want to create those 40,000 jobs in canada. directory are you opposing the kinder morgan pipeline as well? >> are you against canadian energy exports. a moment ago that talked about landmark decision by th the obaa administration and attorney great depression had with national regulation of coal-fired electricity. we did that in canada three years ago. [talking over each other] harper: that's the reason why we have the cleanest electricity sector in the world. >> moderator: now would be a good time to take a brief pause because it's time for the second round of questions on the same subject to save your thoughts and you get a chance to express them. this question goes to tom mulcair. let's talk about pipe was
because it seems that's what we're doing today. usage of both northern gateway, keystone xl and in its current formulation energy east. should canadians just assume major in the export projects will be on hold for the duration of a mulcaire government term in office? mulcair: i believe a clean environment and strong economy, hand-in-hand. what we said in the case of northern gateway and i got a chance to visit the douglas jim is there was no safe way to bring those large supertankers into the narrow channel. doesn't make any sense. what i said in the case of keystone xl, part of sustainable development is creating the value added jobs in job country. you don't export them. that 40,000 jobs that mr. harper's own figures, they were boasting its it was great 40,000 jobs. i want to greet those 40,000 jobs in canada. with regard energy east it could be a win-win-win. better price for producers, more
royalties, help create jobs and, of course, it up with canada's own energy security. here's the rub. mr. harper's, the balance all wrong. he has scrapped a season of important environmental laws starting with the navigable waters protection act, species at risk as been affected, fisheries. instead of dealing with first nations are respectful nation to nation faces he spent $100 billion fighting in court it will take a different approach. we will work with first nations and to be a new era in relations to first nations because they are the resource rumors. mr. harper is belligerent, biting heads approach is not working. not one project has gone off the table. for it to make sense you have to internalize the price of carbon. that sounds like a carbon price -- would that affect consumers at the gas tank? mr. mulcair: internalizing the cost, as i said before, making the polluter pay -- that is a
normal rule of sustainable development. otherwise you are making everybody in society pay. basic rules of sustainable development. i went so far as to change the charter boat to include the right to a clean environment. mr. wells: thank you. justin trudeau. mr. trudeau: mr. trudeau: mr. mulcair has been somewhat inconsistent on pipelines. in english to say he supports the energy east pipeline and in french he says it's out of the question. that inconsistency isn't the kind of leadership we need for canada. you can say one thing in english and opposite in french. we need to restore public trust in our ability as the government to create a level playing field upon which proponents of a project can of our social license thanking the public trust by working in concert with first nations to make sure the right partnerships are in place and also to make sure a
scientific oversight and rules and guidelines for protecting canadians. this is about not just doing right by our environment. is also doing right by future generations. i have three kids and i know i want my kids to grow up in a country as fresh and pure as clean as canada was when we remember it to be and it used to be. for that to take hold we have to the government that is demonstrating leadership, that understands you cannot make a choice between what's good for the environment and with good for the economy. in the 21st century they go to get the investing in clean tech and jobs come in the kinds of pollution reduction in emission reductions we need. harper: you go to one part of the country, your for energy, and then you against it. it. >> your friends in new brunswick attacked numerous leslie. harper: all of these parties
have opposed all these projects before that environmental assessments. that's not the responsible we do things. you take the evaluation based on that and you move forward. that taking the jobs and the economy seriously along with the environment. anthe way you don't deal with ts problem is start imposing carbon taxes, they raise money for the government. they don't reduce emissions. they get consumers hard at the rise of gas goes up, home heating, groceries, that is not the way to do with the nation's. >> alberta and british columbia and québec have a price on carbon right now. harper: look, i would say this. first of all different provinces have different approaches to some of them i prefer more than others. what's important alberta had a very limited carbon price that was about a tech fund would initiate. it was not about raising revenue for the government. it was not about taking money out of the pockets of consumers.
the carbon price proposals would involve tens of billion of dollars of revenue for governments. paul, i will say what is it people across the country. a carbon tax is not about reducing emissions. it's a front, about getting revenue for government that they cannot control. may: i have to try to explain that the reason of the green party opposes every single one of the pipelines that are proposed, risky pipeline schemes to get unprocessed oil out of this country. mr. mulcair is right. every single one of these raw pitchmen unprocessed oil pipeline schemes is that exporting canadian jobs. that's what the green party opposes every single one. i would like to mr. mulcair's answer, will you join us and fight against the risky pipeline and tanker expansion tripling the transport of unprocessed oil from vancouver? will you help us defend our plans?
mulcair: i share the same concerns big effect is another another example of what mr. harper has done to our rule. did you know the groups that are involved in those processes are not even allowed to cross-examine the company's witnesses? that's a breach of the rules of natural deficits and that -- track to be opposed the pipeline? mulcair: opposing these pipelines the systematic and defense is just as wrong as supporting them in advance because in both cases what you need is an objective -- [talking over each other] mulcair: will be replacing to supertankers that come down the saint lawrence, replacing the extremely dangerous trains going through communities all across canada. that's the evaluation we should do. it's an objective evaluation if we think about her credible system which we have lost. >> we need an actual approach that gets it, that restores
public trust that we simply lost over the past years. trudeau: mr. harper is failed on the environment and build on economy. mr. mulcair continues to say different things in both languages but i will say that on energy, i've consist of city needs to gain social license and the conservatives criticize me when they're in governments i don't know what mr. harper is talking about in terms of that. [talking over each other] transport exactly opposite. is easy to find that quote online. may: i still do not know where you stand on kinder morgan. loaded with diluted bitumen. we know regardless of what kind of process that goes through it should not go ahead. it must be stopped. mulcair: this is part of my track record people are free to
consult. when i was finished at environment i didn't want to look at it because of the danger of those tankers in st. louis, the same approach to northern gateway and the dangers tankers in the douglas joe. with these other projects went to be able to look at them objectively with thorough, credible environment assessment processes. i am taking a decision you can study these projects to ms. may takes the position you can say no to all of them in advance. mr. harper is taking a decision you can say yes to all of them in advance. we want a clear process the public can have confidence in. harper: the position of the government is, that's how the government, so the government has handled this project. mr. mulcair has already rolled out a number of projects before they went through the process and is positioning himself to be against others as well. that is the record of the ndp. always for projects until they
face one in the against the. that's why in british columbia to impose liquefied natural gas. mulcair: i have a track record people are free to look at the white house minister of the environment we have tough projects, a bridge by the 25, lots of opposition to it. we went through a thorough evaluation process. we put the 18 conditions. the public that had been opposed to it was on site but in because they knew they could have confidence respecting the environment. respect from five and a strong economy are not opposite. they go hand in hand. may: but something the prime minister said . harper: liquefied natural gas projects, widely supported. may: my wager commitment made and achieve 20 and pittsburgh to attend fossil fuel subsidies? you just criticized the other parties over new subsidies.
he made a commitment globally. you have not eliminated the subsidies by now you've added new subsidies that go to liquefied natural gas which is rocket gas which has the same carbon pollution footprint as coal. harper: actually neither of those things is true. the government hasn't the illuminated subsidies for the oil sands. we are providing accelerated capital cost amounts to provide clean liquefied natural gas export to open courage of the industry that is vital not just to british columbia but to the energy sector in this country. we are doing so at a time when after mind people the energy sector significant challenges. this is a good project for the environment and for our economy. >> went to the things we've seen right across the board from this government is a misunderstanding of the role of government around protecting our future and thinking long-term. trudeau: we have a very clear plan to reduce climate change conditions by greenhouse gas
emissions and fight climate change by working with the provinces. 86% of our economy commit to put a price on carbon, taken of the leadership this government has simply not shown. the liberal party is focused on working to make sure we do reduced emissions because that's what canadians expect in order to be good players in the global economy. >> moderator: i have a summit question but we have to wrap up this second on energy and environment are i want to remind our viewers were watching on tv if you want to engage on socially active say on tonight's debate you can do so on our facebook page. you can talk to other posts about what's going on while you're watching on tv. after this we can talk with these issues on that but it's time for another break. stay tuned. ♪ ♪ >> a live look now at the burger
delight as canadians continuing to issues that matter from coast to coast. citynews continues with in depth analysis as the first debate season intensifies. welcome back. we're joined now by kevin chan, public policy manager at facebook. we been talk of some of the polls but the latest one is about carbon tax, and surprising number of, resounding numbers spent over one majority of canadians who took the ball on facebook the said they believed there should be a price put on carbon. spent that is surprising. >> absolutely. no, look at the map of canada we've seen, look at the 338 different -- the key issues here this is not for purposes of energy and environment. >> in alberta? >> the darker spots are in alberta.
spent with a special panel of political journalists delving deep into these stats. >> the gentleman with me knows the ins and outs of canadian politics and to be joined me for the next eight hours. first we have cormac macsweeney, john geddes and justin ling. who is winning this debate so far and wide? >> it's a split. i think justin trudeau clear and concise, the clear winner of the first and. thomas mulcair, second round, serious. i've split the first two. it's a bit of a wash after the first period. spin i think mulcaire as a challenge not going to bug nation's damage. i think he's managed that so far. most of the tough talking hs
come between trudeau and harper. >> initiated by trudeau as well. >> i will have to agree with justin -- there is a split at the moment and i think the photo walk this morning showed him coming out swinging. mulcair at the star didn't seem to get his point across that as the debate went on he felt more relaxed. he looks better, more calm. >> i thought it took him a little longer to make his stride. harper hasn't been as aggressive. we will be back shortly with more. as we returned to the debate, hello to our viewers tuning in across the country. we have reached the halfway point of the maclean's national leaders debate.
our next topic of conversation is canada's democracy -- how it works and why it doesn't always work as well as we hope. >> that surprising how much time we spent in recent years debating the institutions of canadian democracy. can we clean it up? should we shut it down? is that even possible? there are serious questions about how it reflects the will of the voters. fix the core in the house of commons? are all the appointments the government makes an office -- mr. wells: our first question is to elizabeth may. you have called the government unelected dictatorship and you have called for electoral reform. this election will be won and loss under the current electoral system. are you worried green candidates will take support away from other parties?
when i refer to the government as an elected dictatorship, it's not personal to his prime minister. it's a reference to what's happened -- a creeping growth of power in the prime minister's office which goes along with less of a role for individual members of parliament doing their jobs. the only job description as that found in n the constitution. we need to revisit parliamentary democracy. understand that this election isn't about electing a prime minister. we don't do that in this country. their job is to find the government that will hold the house so we can work for canadians. as far as greens being concerned, not at all. elections across provinces in british columbia, in new brunswick, and prince edward island. all of us got elected by driving
up voter turnout. instead of fixating on this splitting the vote nonproblem, we need to focus on the real problem, that 30% of canadians in the last elections haven't voted. vote abandoning is a much bigger problem than vote splitting. we will do everything we can to reach out to young people, first a . but we had quite a crisis in 2008. are we headed for that kind of arbitrage? tell you hownnot committed green mps will be, to ensure we go from a two-year
minority parliament to a stable effective parliament. you look at great parliaments, to davider people lewis and stephen baker delivering the social safety net. >> she makes a number of great points including one i hear talking to young people. divisivenesshe which is rewarded all too often but makesoral success it more difficult to govern. one of the things that frustrates people is when they see politicians pander. one of the things that r isrtunately mr. mulcai talking in french about his
desire to repeal the clarity act. make it easier for those who want to break up the country to do so. disagreeing with the supreme court judgment that said one vote is not enough to break up the country. the prime wants to brea should be committed to the unity. : i have fought for canada my whole life committed in 1980 referendum, the 1995 referenda vivid i spent 13 years and i was always consistent fighting for canada. it is frustrating for liberals that the first time in a generation, quebecers voted for a federalist party and wanted nothing to do with liberals. the only two people i know in canada who are anxious to start
talking about separatism again are justin trudeau. obligation to come clean with canadians. what is his number? what is your number? mr. trudeau: i do not question your patriotism. mr. mulcair you haven't answered the question. my number is nine. nine justices said one vote is not enough and yet that is mr. mulcair's position. he is siding with the separatist movement in quebec and not the supreme court. it is his policy to appeal the clarity act. he put forward a bill in the house of commons. he loudly announced it in french six weeks ago.
he will not talk about it. : is there a margin you think would be acceptable? mr. trudeau: it said the numbers to be set in the context of the next referendum. i'm not going to question his position as a federalist. what i do question is why bring up a debate of the clarity act other than -- nobody is talking about that. reject thatcers agenda. nobody wants to raise this. why would we go down the road of talking about how to break up the country went quebecers do not want to do that? there is a debate that would decide this question.
let me put the question to the prime minister. have heardlieve i you give a number or revisit that question. stir harper: i do not think it should be revisited. harper: i do not think it should be revisited. -- byried to get invalidating federalist votes. i think quebecers have a firmly rejected that. they have gone through 40 years of the debate that has done nothing but damage. >> the prime minister and i agree yes means yes. to say otherwise while refusing to give his number is a dangerous precedence. if yes does not mean yes, people
could decide to vote yes as a way of sending a signal. that is why it is a dangerous game and not a serious way to talk about a serious subject. i have confidence in quebecers who have twice rejected separation. he thinks it is a winning situation for the liberals to scratch that old wound. >> you were the one who announced that condition on separation. position is the supreme court position is the numbers should be set in the context of the next referendum. your plate to strike up that announce thise to is going to be your policy is not worthy of a prime minister.
ms. may: isn't it ironic that our democratic institutions. we can as canadians, disagree disagreeable. i would like to talk about what we do about fixing parliament. that is a crisis. i don't believe we want to get mired into any thread of separatism. >> >> moderator: let's do that. the little party has a process of electoral for. mr. gerdes is what the next election to be last. does not have a referendum. stephen harper wants to assist any change to the system goes the referendum process. why do you think that is -- spent a very fundamental change to what our political system would work. we had a westminster system. voters are able to elect governments. they don't elect coalitions.
and 80 and, this has come up before. it was subject of a referendum. i have not found canadians who want to make this fundamental change. whenever canadians are asked they rejected. we know the rules. let's play under the rules -. mulcair: when he brought in is unfair elections act he refused to talk to canadians about it. we stood up strong in the house of commons and the posted. we shut down travel. we use every tool in a parliamentary toolbox to stop them from trying to walk away with the next election. he's made it harder for all classes of canadians to vote and that's not just out of any. the expert to look at his unfair elections act have said the same thing. if you become such a keen fan of making sure no single party can change the rule, why did you do just that with your unfair election . harper: the principle change in
makes that they oppose is voters have to show id, demonstrated they are. there's for some different forms of id they can show. canadians support the. that's an important reform. [talking over each other] -- show identification and invite you are before you vote. i think voters should work about i political party would not do that. trudeau: this is a perfect example how we creates fear of massive voter fraud. when his party was rest on example of people fraudulent voting, they were not able to prove anything. some of his mps mistakenly testify to things they had not seen. the fact of the matter is the job if elections canada what we should look at as a goal, as a country is trying to encourage as many people as possible to vote. the changes mr. harper has made to the elections act make it more difficult for students, for
aboriginal and indigenous communities, for many seniors to actually vote. the fact is that we need to make sure that those boy voices are g heard because those voices are not just marginalized in voting rights in a summit aspects of the site mr. harper wants to keep it that way. harper: how would be able to identify voter fraud if we can't even identify and voters are? this is a commonsense reform supported by 90% of canadians. we've made sure there is id applicable for every single category of canadians and that's why the policy is strong support. >> it allowed you to extend the election campaign to 11 weeks and prorate expenses to match. did you have this kind of long election campaign in mind for two years? harper: we agreed to have an election debate this week months
ago. everybody knew an election was on and the other campaigns were campaigning. if we are going to be an election campaign we should under the rules of the election act, not using parliamentary -- spent why were you putting 24/7 on your website, mr. harper? >> moderator: the first question goes to stephen harper. mr. harper, used to promise you would name senators if they had not been elected. now you're promising you won't name senators at all. do you blame the courts for blocking reform and chip as the provinces to come up with ideas for reform. the course and the provinces did name senators who are in trouble, you did. do you owe canadians an apology for putting mike duffy, family and others in the senate? harper: first of all i did not mean all the senators that are in trouble. the senate has been institution that is these kind of problems for 150 years.
i with you for the first time we have a senate but now it's clear rules and is enforcing those rules. what i will say is this, paul. my role is not to apologize for the bad actions of others. and that actions arise the world until there is to take responsibility and hold people accountable and that's what we are doing. >> moderator: your policy is now cannot name senators indefinitely. there's a court case before a judge in british columbia on the assertion that several of the work, you can't get overtime because the constitutional mandate of the senate? have you sought constitutional advise on whether you can go ahead with your new policies? harper: absolutely. .. the powerminister has to name those or not name those. we have