tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 11, 2015 4:00am-6:01am EDT
together in one room. we don't know whether that will happen again before you vote. i don't think they know. while they are here, let's make them work. in tleaders are just injure rudeau, elizabeth may, tom harper. and steven tonight's debate will cover four broad subjects at the top of voters' minds -- the economy, energy and the environment, the state of canada's democracy, in foreign policy and security. each segment will begin with questions forom me. another leader will respond, followed by an extended discussion among all the leaders. we will go through that process twice for each of our four subjects. we drew lots to determine the speaking order. everybody here knows that order,
but nobody in any of the parties have seen or heard the questions i will be asking tonight. the parties have agreed that at any point i can intervene to direct conversation. let's begin with our first topic, the economy. this is one subject on everybody's mind as the election approaches, the economy. >> we have dangerous economic wind flowing in canada. >> the country's economic health is shaky. we are coming out of a mild recession. oil prices have slumped, exports are weak. what ottawa's proper role in the canada? that's the context of our discussion. mr. wells: as the luck of the drug would have it, the first question goes to the liberal leader, justin trudea.
mr. trudeau: good evening. mr. wells: canadians are feeling anxious about the economy. manufacturing is hurting. the price of oil is down. your economic plan is built around the middle class tax break. is that really enough of the response, given the challenge that you say canada faces? mr. trudeau: one of the things we seen, paul, is that for 10 years the approach that mr. harper has taken has not worked for canadians. tohas consistently chosen give opportunities and tax breaks and benefits to the wealthiest canadians in the hopes that it would create growth, but that is not happening and it goes to the heart of the question being posed in the selection -- is stephen harper's plan working for you? he took a decade of surpluses and turned it into eight consecutive deficits. we are the only country in the g7 in recession. he has no plan to get out of it. and we just found out wages are
falling as well. you may not feel that, but i know you feel it at home. us of the liberal party have put forward a plan to invest in the middle class, to support the middle class, to create growth through strengthening the middle class. we are the only party on the stage tonight that is committed to lowering taxes for the middle class by asking the wealthiest to pay more tax. there are a lot more elements to the plan, but we know that when you put money in the pockets of middle-class canadians, the economy grows. a lot of. wells: economists have said that median incomes have been on the rise since 1990. do you have a solution to a problem that isn't there? mr. trudeau: not at all. people are worried about saving for their retirement or making traces the between their own opportunities and paying for their kids' education. people are worried that for the
first time we have a generation of young people who will do better than previous generations. we need solutions for that, and it's not to continue to give benefits to the wealthiest. it's to bring a fresh approach, a new plan, integrate team to change the course. the only risk right now would be sticking with what has been a failed plan for 10 years. mr. wells: thank you. as a look of the draw has it, the first to respond to stephen harper. paul, let mewell, correct a few facts. in athe past 10 years, period of unprecedented economic instability, we have seen since the great global financial crisis canada has the strongest economic growth, the strongest job creation record, and the struggles to growth for the middle class among any of the major developed economies. what we face right now -- let's be clear -- over 80% of our economy is growing. our exports are up 10% this year.
where we have weakness is obviously in the energy sector because of the fallen energy prices, but our view is that we th this yeaross thiw and we stick with the plan that is working. low tax, rather than go to a plan of high tax and high debt and deficit which is failing everywhere else. mr. wells: the words you use to describe your opponent's plan are sometimes fairly great. you've compared it to greece, the tax increases introduced in alberta a disaster. ratesew changes in tax actually have that kind of catastrophic effect? mr. harper: we need to be clear on what's being proposed. the other parties are proposing, literally, tens of billions of dollars of additional spending, permanent spending, to be financed by permanently higher tax rates in permanent deficit. the fact is, paul, we know where
that leads. countries in that position have not recovered from the recession and are stagnating. this country has had the best performance in developed economies. mr. wells: thank you. we open it to all the leaders, now. mr. mulcair: i know that canadians were card to make ends meet in to take care of their families -- it's how i was raised. 400,000er has launched well-paid manufacturing jobs, 200,000 more unemployed today than in 2008. mr. harper's plan simply isn't working -- we know that. incomes are flatlining, household debt is skyrocketing. we had a plan to invest in the middle class and to create new jobs. we want to invest in infrastructure, we want to give a break to small corporations. agreerper and mr. trudeau that tens of billions of dollars for the wealthiest is the way to go.
we disagree and we want to create $1 million a day quality child spaces. that's not just good for families, that's good for the economy. mr. mulcair: we were the two who were there during the last debate and i recall clearly that mr. harper was still talking about -- if there's going to be a recession we would be in one already. i don't really think he's got a good track record on spotting when this country is in a recession. we are in a recession now. it's the wrong time for austerity measures. we need to build up canada's economy through investment. right now there is no investment going on and there hasn't been two or three years. not from the private sector sitting on $630 billion of debt money. we need to make sure this economy doesn't stutter to a halt, and if we stay with the risky plan that's where we are headed. mr. harper: let's be clear what the record is -- we have 1.3 million new jobs created since the crisis, the best record by
far in the g7. that is why incomes are rising across the board, that's why we have manufacturing in other sectors outside of energy that are now expanding, because we are able, because we have a balanced budget and are able to make investments in infrastructure and health care. throw ust the time to back into deficit and to spend tens of billions of dollars we don't have. the reality is that canadians across this country know that times are tough. the fact is that you have become disconnected from the reality people are facing. your plan is a working and we know that, and the risk would be sticking with your plan. mr. mulcair is good in his criticisms that is not necessarily good at answering his own questions. chloe has seen is that he's put forward plans for $15 minimum wage. he's talking about across the country.
what is the cases he's misleading canadians, getting canadians to work in big box stores in behind checkout counters and in shops. . , because his minimum wage -- false hope. it will help less than 1% of canadians who earn minimum wage -- that advertising is simply irresponsible. mr. mulcair: under our plan to introduce a $15 an hour minimum wage, over 100,000 canadians will get a raise. under mr. trudeau's plan, not a single. mr. trudeau: 350,000 kids -- mr. harper: well-paid manufacturing jobs lost during his mandate. the jobs that are being created are mostly part-time, precarious jobs. leading bank saying that the quality is the
worst of the generation. mr. trudeau: let me give you the facts from statistics canada. 90% of the 1.3 million new jobs created our full-time. 80% of private sector. 2/3 are in high wage industries. that's why incomes have been growing in this country when they have not been in other countries. i will tell you what won't grow our economies -- the plans these guys are pro jecting. -- thisthousand dollars e not -- enot -- chosells: mr. harper, you to raise the age of retirement, taking tens of thousands of dollars out of the pockets of most vulnerable seniors. you have categorically refused to engage with pension security.
canadians know that you let them down because you chose to continue to give benefits and tax breaks to the wealthiest canadians. canadians need help from their government. that is why we are focused on strengthening the middle class with the more generous child benefit that will lift 315 thousand kids out of poverty, and stop sending government checks to millionaires, which is what you want to do. mr. harper: let me be clear what we've done for seniors -- tyrant age will not go up for over 10 years. 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, mr. prime minister, you are cherry picking your data. new jobs is irrelevant compared to other g7 nations unless you correct for population growth. comparing us to germany where they don't have new people, compared to other economies in the g7, we are doing very poorly. we are in a recession under your watch for the second time. mr. harper: ms. may, i think the fact that we are able to bring in immigrants as part of our economic action plan. investing in infrastructure and innovation to drive it. that's why we have -- s. may: --r: w
mr. mulcair: what he fails to mention is that he has run up $150 billion in the last 10 years. frankly, last week as we headed into the campaign, he spent over $1 billion. honestly, mr. harper, we really can't afford another four years. mr. harper: we have a budget that is balanced when other countries don't. mr. wells: well that wraps up the first round of questions on the economy. we are only half done on the subject. the next question goes to elizabeth may. ms. may, the green's policies call for a transformation of the canadian economy. that is a long-term project in canada is facing trouble right now. what can the federal government do now, this year, to reanimate the economy? ms. may: excellent question.
we also have to keep in contact that oil makes up 2% of our gdp. the prime minister is right -- we are seeing other sectors begin to rebound. our dollar shouldn't keep declining. but we can't just sit back and think that the current, stagnant economy will fix itself. we need investment from the public sector, to invest in a climate action plan. we need an army of carpenters, electricians, contractors going out to plug leaky buildings. 30% of carbon pollution comes from the energy we waste and the money we waste heating the outdoors in the winter and cooling in the summer. we also need to invest in municipal infrastructure. infrastructure deficit is $123 billion and we need to get at it. mr. wells: can you recruit your army of carpenters and budget balance? ms. may: in the scheme of things it's not very important. we are trillion economy,
not going to see a balanced budget this year. the parliamentary budget office just put out its new figures. i wouldn't condemn them. i saidre-budget advice, this fixation on balancing the budget is being driven by the political imperative that the conservatives created by saying in the last election that we will give you all these goodies once we balance the budget. this year, they monkeyed. with ththey wanted to book the sale of the general voters' shares in the next fiscal year. we sold 73 million shares and general motors. was a good policy choice? i don't know. ,ut fiddling with the books and the price of oil keeps dropping. i don't condemn them for that -- it is far more serious that $150 billion of federal debt has been accumulated. mr. wells: thank you, ms. may.
the first leader to respond is tom mulcair. mr. mulcair: i have a concrete plan to kickstart the economy. we will invest in infrastructure. we will ask our municipalities to assume 60% of the cost. that's not going to work. we will reduce the business taxes because they are responsible for creating 80% of the new jobs. we will put our effort there, instead of giving tens of billions of dollars of tax cuts to our largest corporations. we will champion manufacturing and innovation, including green energy technologies which will represent a $5 trillion investment around the world. mr. harper doesn't believe in a positive role for government in that, and we will help the middle class, because it is good for families and good for the economy. quality childcare spaces across canada. mr. harper: the challenge we are
facing now in our economy is about creating growth. one of the things that is so concerning about mr. mulcair's corporate tax hike is that it it is a time in a recession when we need more growth, more investment. his plan to hike corporate taxes will be pandering to the people who like to hate corporations. we need that growth, we need job creation. but the money does have to come from somewhere if we are going to strengthen the middle class. that's why i can't quite understand why mr. mulcair has ruled out doing that we are doing -- which is asking the wealthiest 1% to pay more tax so we can give a big tax break to the middle class. mr. mulcair: the real question is after those tens of billions of tax cuts for the richest corporations, where are the jobs? on the question of personal income tax increases, we are firmly opposed to them. look at new brunswick.
they will have a tax rate of 58.7%. they don't have a medical faculty -- how was new brunswick going to be able to attract and retain top level medical doctors when they are going to be told our tax rate is close to 60%? we think that canadians are paying their fair share. large corporations are not, and they -- right, whenolutely those corporate taxes were cut, these corporations were the job creators. they sat on that money -- it was dead money. $630 billion in cash, an astonishing 32% of canada's gdp is sitting stagnant. appropriate toy raise the corporate tax rate to where was in 2009. it would still be very competitive, and we should do it as quickly as possible so we have money to invest in getting
the economy moving. yes, we have created the lowest tax environment for business investment across the g7 -- that's one of the reasons we have the strongest employment growth in the g7. we cut taxes not just for big business but for small business, and it was voted against every single time. the reality is not only did these tax cuts help create jobs, but our tax revenues actually went up from the business sector. we have done the same thing for people -- we cut taxes across the board, with the vast bulk for middle and lower income canadians. what the other guys want to do is impose both on workers and on employers big hikes to payroll taxes, ei taxes, those things would kill jobs and they would hurt ordinary people. mr. mulcair: mr. harper is once again eschewing responsibility.
he has had six excessive deficits. wages are shrinking. he continues to try and tell people that we need to stay the course, the people at home know that. they know that this economy is now working for them. we need a fresh approach that understands the way to create growth and the canadian economy is to strengthen the middle class and make sure that people have jobs in confidence and the capacity to spend and be sure about the future. mr. harper has continued to give tax breaks to the wealthiest, and that is not actually stimulated -- that has not stimulated our economy and that is why canada is growing less fair. canadians right across the country are looking for a change, the better approach and a better plan for the economy. that's exactly what the liberal party -- mr. harper: we have not only a balanced budget, we have the lowest of debt levels in the g7 by a country mile.
we have by far the best fiscal situation going forward -- mr. trudeau: a surplus -- mr. harper: in almost every other country they are rising, and they are rising in significant part because of the tax breaks these given to low income canadians that they have consistently voted against. ms. may: but -- mr. mulcair: here's a fact that canadians now -- in 2008, mr. harper said that we were not in a recession, and it turns out we were in the worst recession since the 1920's. he's trying to hide the fact that we are in a deficit again. every outside analyst agrees with that. the parliamentary budget officer is categorical -- it is a deficit, that is $150 billion. recordper's job creation is the worst since the second world war -- mr. harper: clarification on the facts. the reality is that the figures
that of the department of finance show that so far this year, we are substantially in surplus, and well ahead of our budget. those are the real numbers. ms. may: if -- mr. mulcair: you were trying to deny the fact that for the past five months, those same statistics from the canadian government have shown that for five months in a row the canadian economy has shrunken. we are one month away from a technical definition of but according to a lot of observers we are already in a recession. mr. harper: i'm not denying that. what i'm saying is that -- exclusively in the energy sector -- handle a full and price is not tens of billions of dollars of increased taxes, increased spending. that is how countries get themselves into serious, long-term trouble. ms. may: mr. prime minister, you made a promise in 2007 that you would tackle the barriers to
trade and labor mobility within this country, as an economic union. it is squarely -- and he you would go to the trade and commerce if needed to be, and now here we are. we have more barriers to trade within canada and the 28 nation states of the european union. why over this period of time -- where is your plan? mr. harper: the fact of the matter -- mr. mulcair: the problem mr. harper has on that one is he refuses to sit down and talk with the premiers. it's just not showing leadership. we have a federation that needs people to sit down and talk about barriers, talk about climate change, talk about how we will get canadians ahead and uncertain economy. he has simply refused to engage with provincial leaders, whether it's on trade barriers, climate change, trading or job creation -- that is quite frankly not the kind of leadership that a broad
and diverse country like canada needs from a prime minister. mr. harper: the premiers in the federal government are working together on breaking down trade barriers. we have the new west partnership and we made significant progress, but more importantly, we have increased the number of countries with which we concluded trade deals from five to 44. the entire european union, with a foothold in asia. no government has opened up trade opportunities for canadian companies and canadian workers like this. ms. may: but the korea -- mr. mulcair: stephen is the only prime minister in canadian history who, when asked about the recession during his mandate, gets to say "which one?" he's just admitted that we've had five months of negative growth, and a lot of experts say we are already in a recession. mr. harper, we want to spend our time concentrating on creating jobs.
that we have seen is that you can to hang onto your job. with all due respect, your foothold in asia was to sell us down the river on national sovereignty. you bounce this country without a single set of hearings in parliament to an investment treaty with china. we can't get out of it. we need to insist on transparency, because beijing will be looking over the shoulder of the next prime minister and tell us what laws we are allowed to pass. mr. wells: we will have to leave the segment of the debate on the economy although i'm sure will,. this concludes our first run on the economy. we will continue after this break, please stay with us. returns,lean debate
right now we are coast-to-coast with canadians reacting and analyzing what is being said tonight and what isn't. a live look right now at newfoundland, were students have gathered to watch the leaders face off. now we move west to sutherland, garnering reaction on the key issues the leaders were just discussing -- jobs. >> i'm here at toronto's seneca college where we have been watching the debate with some journalism students. they have been scrutinizing the key issues when it comes to the country's youth. one of the big issues is the difficulty in finding a job. by are joined now i angline. tell me about your concerns. >> students tonight, the big issue is jobs. we want to make sure that after spending so much money and so much time on our education, that
there is a return -- we want the job after this and we want to make sure we can make a dent in our loans. what's the minimum wage going to be question mark do we have a fighting chance? >> secondary education -- loans is another issue. >> may be workshops after you finish the formal training -- is there an opportunity for extended goals? >> we will send it over to roger now, on facebook. >> we want to get you involved. we have a public policy manager joining us. we've been asking questions -- our first poll results are in. do people feel should be the leader of the country? >> we opened the poll at the beginning of the debate, and we have 50% of the people who have taken our poll supporting mr. mulcair. but is early days, obviously early days for the debate as well. we will see over the course of the debate whether the numbers shift. >> we will be also looking at other polls.
>> we will be looking at dives, how do canadians on facebook feel about these things, and which leaders best represent? >> we will be able to gauge this reaction instantly. >> absolutely. >> the place to go for that is facebook.com. we will be asking you questions throughout the evening. are you surprised by what you are seeing here? >> again, this is early momentum, before anybody has really hurt them debate. it will be interesting to see the course of the evening. >> we will send you back to the debate in new brunswick. are special analysis will continue, now back to the debate. will come back. -- welcome back.
our second section will be on energy and the environment. >> two years ago, conservative cabinet minister called oil experts an urgent matter of national interest. since then, the two biggest pipeline projects are stalled. >> we are glad that this pipeline is underway. >> it's been almost four years since canada went through for the cure to accord -- the kyoto accord. says weronment canada won't meet our targets for carbon emissions for 2020. what's the proper trade-off? can canada afford to clean up its act? can it afford not to? mr. wells: our first question on this topic is to stephen harper. mr. harper, you've been prime minister for a decade, and you want to be a different kind of minister on energy exports.
you want us to be an energy superpower. hasmajor exports projects stalled on your watch. what have you achieved in energy exports? mr. harper: in fact, our energy exports have increased, not just until recently. we have also seen increase in uranium exports, coal exports. i would say this -- the federal government does not build pipelines. we obviously favors seeing a diversification of our exports, but we have established an environmental process that companies have to go through. in terms of the keystone pipeline, that the situation in the control of the united states. i've had many conversations with president obama and he's not asking canada to do anything. isyou know, there overwhelming public supposed on both sides and i'm very optimistic about the future. mr. wells: you think we sadly
wait for a new president? mr. harper: that may be the case, but the reality is that there is overwhelming public support, including in congress on both sides of the aisle. i am very confident looking at the field that whoever is the next president i think will approve that project. mr. wells: have you found this to be frustrating? the northern gateway project was called an urgent matter. three years after he said it, it remains -- mr. harper: the project went through a rigorous environmental assessment with the time limitation. it recommended some 200 conditions. we approve the project subject to those conditions and and is now up to the proponents to sell those conditions. that is how the system works. mr. wells: if there had been a
price on carbon four years ago, would obama have approved keystone xl? mr. harper: absolutely not. he has never said that to me. on the contrary, he told me what factors will influence the decision, is own evaluation of the united states. lets her member that the united states has not even agreed to greenhouse gas emissions regulations on their own sector. mr. wells: thank you. the first respond to you is elizabeth may. ms. may: with all due respect, your record on climate is a litany of broken promises, including one directly relevant to the question about exports. you committed in 2008 not to export unprocessed oil to countries that have weaker emissions standards in canada. that would obviously include nd kinder morgan. no sense to export on profits to countries with poor environmental records. you also committed to bring in a north america-wide cap and trade program.
that was way back in another speech in 2008. under the environment minister you committed to it by 2010, and you also personally went to copenhagen. it was in the previous promise. you were in copenhagen and committed to a very weak target. we are not going to come anywhere near by 2020. there is just no credibility at this point. canada needs to take action. we are in a summer of extreme drought, raging wildfires, severe weather through all of our season. canadians want action, candidates to take action so that we can defend ourselves from the changing global climate, and from the impact economical here at home. mr. mulcair: but mr. harper has consistently missed -- mr. trudeau: what mr. harper has consistently misunderstood if you can't make a trade between what's good for the economy and the environment. mr. harper continues to say we can't do any inc. for the
environment because it will hurt the economy. not only has he not hurt the environment, -- not helps the environment, he has hurt the economy. people don't trust this government to look out for our long-term interests. he hasn't convinced communities of the rightness of his pipelines, of the proposals he supported. he hasn't been working with first nations and the kinds of partnerships that are needed if her going to continue to develop national resources. canada will always have an element of natural resources, but the job of the prime minister is to get those resources to market. in the 21st century it means being smart and responsible. mr. harper's inability to understand that is exactly why he's so struggled to get our economy growing in the right ways. mr. harper: let's be clear on what the record is. not only do we take the economy and the environment seriously, we are the first government in history to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions while growing the economy. how have we done that? we do that through a sector by sector regulatory approach, where we regulate absolute reductions and omissions, and we do so in ways that will not kill jobs and will not burden taxpayers. --t mr. harper thought that by gutting our environmental laws somehow he could get our energy resources to market better. how is that working out, mr. harper? one of those projects have gotten off the drawing board. it's not hard to understand why. canadians across the country want to clear, thorough, credible environmental assessment process. canada can be a leader around the world. we can play a positive role. that with mr. harper, we have the worst of all worlds. air and water, more carbon pollution. ms. may: and it is -- the only
way -- with all due respect, the only way you can take credit for the emissions drop, which only occurred in 2008 and 2009, as the global financial crisis. that's the only thing that brought down the missions. they would have gone up much more than they had if not for the actions of ontario and british columbia. the cold, cruel reality is that under your watch, greenhouse gases have been rising, carbon pollution has been rising, as soon as our economy began to recover. mr. harper: greenhouse gas emissions have gone down, and the economy has grown. those are the facts. mr. mulcair says the various energy projects are going nowhere -- no, they are in a process that is going forward. we make sure that we look at the process and make decisions. the problem is that the other parties have taken positions, depending on who they are speaking to, against every single one of the project.
not just our projects, but in british columbia -- natural gas project. they have opposed the government to liquefy natural gas that is supported not only by the providence of british columbia, but by aboriginal communities and of broad cross-section -- ms. may: mr. prime minister -- >> frankly, canadians are tired of this leadership. you haven't been able to get it done. you haven't been able to get it done on the economy. you haven't built the kind of balance that canadians expect. if we are going to build strong communities and create jobs for children and grandchildren while protecting our air, water, land, we have to show leadership. mr. harper: under the liberal government they were up 30%. mr. wells: mr. harper, will candidate meet the targets that you went to copenhagen to set? mr. harper: what happens with
the targets -- i believe we will, but we are now focusing on a 2030 target. that's what every country is doing, in concert with international partners. look, we are going to have to do more regulation and we are committed to that, but there will also have to be technological transformation. that is why we are investing over $1 million per year in energy -- $1 billion per year in energy project. mr. wells: during your 2008 campaign, your minister -- when are they coming? mr. harper: i have been clear that this is an integrated north american sector and we need integrated north american regulations. i made that proposal to our partners in the united states and mexico. they haven't accepted it but we are ready to go. when he first came to ottawa he was all about
announcing a north american energy partnership. he was going to work with canada, and that was eight years ago. obama just announced recently landmark legislation moving forward on climate change action. canada is nowhere to be found. that is why the liberal party is proposing that we work again on a continental model with the united states and mexico to address energy and the environment -- mr. wells: thiquestion could go to some of your colleagues -- there is a paradox with the right price on carbon. what i hear from you is no, thanks. the reason the environmental groups in canada and across the united states are so concerned about canadian oil is because mr. harper has turned it into the scapegoat around the world for climate change. he has put a big target on our ofs, which will be a part
our economy for years to come, although we do have to get beyond them. his lack of leadership on the environment is hurting canadian jobs and media relations. mr. mulcair: getting our resources to market is critical, but mr. harper has gotten the balance wrong. he has gutted our environmental legislation, and he knows that is hurting jobs in our resource sector, hurting our economy, hurting canada's international reputation. whening on my experience, i brought it over arching sustainable development legislation, i would enforce that type of legislation, make the polluters pay for the pollution they create, and it would get looked at with a thorough incredible environmental assessment process. botharper and mr. trudeau agree with keystone xl which represents the export of 40,000 jobs. i want to create those 40,000 jobs here in canada. opposing theyou pipeline? mr. harper: he goes it is party
to argue against canadian energy. a moment ago they talked about landmark decisions by the obama administration. they are pushing ahead with national regulations of coal-fired electricity. we did that in canada three years ago -- mr. trudeau: you did not do that, you were blocking that at every turn. mr. wells: this question goes to tom muclair. let's talk about the pipeline. you said you opposed to northern gateway, keystone xl, and energy east. should canadians just assumed that major energy export projects will be on hold for the duration of your term in office? mr. mulcair: i believe that it
a clean environment and strong economy go hand-in-hand. in the case of the northern wayway, there was no safe to bring those supertankers into that narrow channel -- that doesn't make any sense. what i have said in the case of the keystone xl, part of sustainable development is creating those value-added jobs in your own country. you don't export them to another country. that 40,000 jobs figure is mr. harper's figure. they were boasting that it would create 40,000 jobs. i want to create that here in canada. with regard to energy east, it could be a win-win-win. it could also help create jobs in canada, and it could help with canada's own energy security. but here is the rub. mr. harper has gotten the balance wrong. he has scrapped a series of important environmental laws, starting with the navigable
waters protection act. species at risk have been affected, fisheries. is that of dealing with first nations on a respectful basis, he spends $100 million fighting them in court. we will take a different approach. firstl work with fo nations. mr. harper's belligerent butting heads approach is not working and that's why not one of those projects have gotten off the table. mr. wells: in an interview you said that 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. mulcair has been somewhat inconsistent. he will say he supports the pipeline and in french he said it was out of the question. that kind of inconstancy is in the kind of leadership we need. you can't say one thing and english and another in french. the fact is that we need to restore public trust in our ability as a government to create a level playing field on which a project can acquire social license, gave public trust, to make sure that the right partnerships are make sureand to that the scientific oversight are protecting canadians. this is about not just doing right by our environment, it's also doing right by future generations. i have three kids and i know i
want them to grow up in the country as fresh and pure and clean as canada was, as we remember it. to take hold, we have to have a government that is demonstrating leadership. understand that you cannot make a choice between what's good for the environment and what's good for the economy. in the 21st century, they go together. investing in clean tech, and jobs, and pollution reductions, it's what this country hasn't done well enough. mr. mulcair: you do -- executive: you do at you accuse mr. mulcair of doing. havef these parties opposed all of these projects before we even had environmental assessment. that's not the responsible way to do things. you take the evaluation and you move forward, and that is taking the jobs and the economy
seriously along with the environment. the way you don't deal with it is impose carbon taxes that raise money for the government but don't reduce emissions. they hit consumers hard. the price of gas goes up, home heating, groceries. harper, alberta and british columbia and quebec have their own carbon right now. different provinces have different approaches. some of them i prefer more than others. alberta had a very limited carbon price. it was a tech fund within the industry. it was not about raising revenue for the government. it was not about taking money from consumers. a carbon price proposals proposed by the other parties would involve tens of billions of dollars of revenue for government. i said to people across the country -- a carbon tax is not about reducing emissions.
it's a front, it's about getting revenue for government that cannot control -- ms. may: i have to try to explain that the reason the green party opposes every single one of the pipelines proposed, risky pipeline schemes could get unprocessed oil out of this country. every single one of these unprocessed oil pipeline schemes is about exporting canadian trust. that is why the green party opposes every single one. i would like to hear mr. mulcai r's answer on whether he will the expansionght of unprocessed oil. mr. mulcair: i share the same withrns as miss may regards to the kindergarten pipeline. -- kinder morgan pipeline. did you know the groups involved in those processes are not even allowed to cross examine the
company's witnesses? that the fundamental breach of the rules of justice. ms. may: are you oppose the pipeline? mr. mulcair: opposing this pipeline systematically in advance is just as wrong as supporting. in both cases what you need is an objective -- ms. may: you said we should rate for results? -- wait for results? we would be replacing the extremely dangerous trades that are going through communities all across canada. that is the type of evaluation we should do. if we can get back to a credible system. canadians know we need an actual approach that gets it, that restores the public trust that we have lost over the past years. mr. harper has failed on the environment and has failed on the economy. mr. mulcair continues to say different things in both languages that i would say that on energy east, i have
consistently said it needs to gain social license. the conservatives in new brunswick -- you criticize them when they were government so i don't know what mr. harper is talking about. mr. harper: exactly the opposite. in an interview -- ms. may: i'm still not sure where you stand on kindergarten morgan. -- kinder morgan. withwould left vancouver hazardous material. regardless of what kind of profits, it should not go ahead. mr. harper: this is part of my track record. across fromthe re quebec city, i didn't even want to look at it because of the danger. the same approach i took with the dangerous tankers in the douglas channel. with regard to these other
projects, we have to be able to look at them objectively with thorough, credible environmental assessments. i and taking the position that you can study these projects. ms. may takes the position that you can say no to all of them in advance. we want a clear, thorough, credible process. the position of the government is that we have a scientific expert evaluation of every project before we decide to proceed. that is how the government has handled these projects. cair has already rolled out a number of projects for the web through the process and is positioning himself to be against others. that is the record. they are always for projects until they face one. that is why in british columbia they oppose -- mr. mulcair: mr. harper, i have a track record that people are free to look at. when i was the administrator of the environment we took tough budgets.
it, we opposition to went through a thorough evaluation process input down 18 conditions. the public that had been opposed to it was on our side by the end of it because they could have confidence in us. respect for the environment and a strong economy are not opposites, they go hand-in-hand. your party opposes liquefied natural gas project. it is important to the energy strategy -- ms. may: mr. pratt minister, where was your commitment at the g 20? you have just criticize the other opposition parties over new subsidies to fossil fuels. you made a commitment globally. you have not eliminated the subsidies. now you have added new subsidies to liquefied natural gas, fracked gas, which has the same carbon pollution footprint as coal. mr. harper: neither of those things is true.
the government has eliminated subsidies. we have provided accelerated capital costs to provide clean natural gas to encourage the industry that is vital not just a british columbia but to the energy sector in this country. we are doing so at a time when the energy sector has faced many challenges. these are good projects for the environment and for our economy. of the thingsne we've seen right across the board from this government is a misunderstanding of the role of government around protecting our future. party ist the liberal very clear plan to reduce climate change emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, can fight climate change by working. 86% of our economy have put a price on carbon, but the actions of four provinces say that -- the liberal party is focused on
working with those provinces to make sure we do reduce emissions. int is what canadians expect order to be good players in the global economy. mr. wells: i have so many questions but we will have to wrap up this segment on energy and the environment. i want to remind our viewers that if you want to engage on social media and have your say, you can do ouronacebook page. you can talk to other voters while you are watching on tv. we will talk about these issues all night that it is time for another break. >> a live look at the burgundy in montreal as canadians continue hearing the issues that matter from coast-to-coast. city news continues with in-depth analysis as the first debate of the election season intensifies. >> welcome back. we are joined by kevin, the
public policy manager at facebook. we have been talking about the polls -- the latest is about a carbon tax. surprising numbers. >> we have an overwhelming majority of canadians who took the pole in said they believe that there should be a price put on carbon. >> that surprising when you overlay it with the numbers over the last few months. >> when you look at the map of different to 338 varieties, and one of the key issues they care about -- this is a map of preferences for energy and the environment. the darker spots are in alberta. ofwe have a special panel political journalists. we will send it to -- >> the gentleman with me knows the ins and outs of canadian politics and they will be joining me for the next few hours.
justlin ling. who was winning this debate so far and why? >> it is a bit of a split. trudeau was clear and concise in the first round. second round had a very serious indictment of the prime minister. stays standing and that's all he really had to do so it's a bit of a washout. >> mulcair had the challenge and not playing to the pug nation's image. he was more prime ministerial. i think he has managed that so far. most of the tough talking has 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 nations, and those disadvantage by the conservatives fair elections act to get out a higher level of votes so greens can win in the current system and so canada wins. mr. wells: mr. wells: you said we do not .lect a prime minister 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. a the liberal party has project of reform. he doesn't want to have a referendum on reform. ants in herper oncw changed go through a reform process. harper: we have a westminster system. voters are able to elect governments, not coalitions later. this has come up before. a was the subject of referendum in ontario and prince edward island. i have not found canadians who want to make this change. when asked, they reject it.
let's play under the rules. mr. wells: when he brought in act, heir elections refused to talk to canadians. we stood up strong and opposed it. we shut down travel by parliamentarian committees. we used every tool to stop him from walking away. harder for whole classes of canadians to vote. that is not just our opinion. mr. harper, if you have become such a keen fan making sure no single party can change the rules, why did you go ahead and do just that? principal change it makes is voters have to show id to demonstrate who they are. there are many pieces of id they can show. canadians support that. 90% of canadians believe it
you should be able to show who you are before you vote. i think voters should be worried about parties who would not do that. who cannot identify themselves. > this is a perfect? -- a perfectu: this is example of how his government creates fear. the job of elections canada, what we should look at as a goal as a country is to try and encourage as many people as possible to vote. the changes he has made to the elections act make it more difficult for students, aboriginal and indigenous communities, to actually vote. the fact is, we need to make sure those voices are being
heard. those forces are not just voting rightsn but so many aspects. mr. harper: how can we identify fraud if we don't even know who voters are? this is a commonsense reform that we have id applicable for ian.y canad one of the things it allowed you to do was extend to 11 weeks. longou have this kind of campaign in mind for two years? mr. harper: we agreed to have an election debate months ago. it is very simple. to be an going election campaign, we should be under the rules of the election act, not using parliamentary --
mr. wells: we are going to continue this with new hutchens. -- questions. the first goes to mr. harper. you used to promise you would not name senators. you are blaming courts for blocking reform and have asked with ideas. come up the folks in the provinces did not name the senators in trouble, you did. apology? canadians an owe canadians an apology? mr. harper: the senate has had these kinds of problems for 150 years. we now have a senate with clear rules and is enforcing the rules. is not to apologize for the bad actions of others. the role of a leader is to take
responsibly and halted for accountable and that is what we are doing. mr. wells: your policy is not to name senators indefinitely. there was a court case before a judge in british columbia on the assertion that will not work. if you cannot empty out the , have your time sought constitutional advice on whether you can go ahead with your new policy. mtvharper: you cannot senate entirely, but i have left 22 seats vacant. the powerminister has to name those or not name those. brought the cost of the senate down. those will force most provinces, almost all of them who have opposed senate elections and reform, to come clean with that and explain why the senators are not being elected. why the will not abolish.
time, public pressure will force this issue to be resolved. frankly, the longer there are vacancies, it will raise questions about why we continue with the senate we do. wells: you think one idea is to meet with -- mr. harper: no. i have talked to provinces, i know with the positions are. is nowhere near consensus on either reform or abolition. opening up constitutional discussions is the wrong priority for the country. are the economy and security comedic of the provinces really believe that, they will pose that. mr. wells: the first response goes to, care. -- tom mulcair. he has said he
would never name and appointed senator. and the list59 under investigations continues to grow. i'm looking for a mandate to put an end to this once and for all. there are things we can do. one make sure every vote counts. open up parliament, for example. of the secrecy of the internal committee that looks at how taxpayer money is spent. think taxpayers should have the ability to look at how every single dollar is spent. we want to get rid of the senate abolition. and simple. mr. trudeau thinks we need better senators. need formernly senators. to say,eau: his plan is
stop me before i appoint again. he broke the promise on his first day as prime minister by appointing a senator. he broke it again. lcair wants to open of the constitution. when the prime minister sits down and actually talks about things, canadians are going to want jobs, climate change, health care. to open up the constitution. tookiberal party actually concrete action to remove senators to make sure any future appointments are done in a transparent nonpartisan way.
ms. may: whoever gave you the to lawneeds to go back school. what you are doing is unconstitutional. the biggest scandal was not the -- it was the illegitimate notion the prime minister's office has the right to tell conservative senators how to vote. for the first time in history of this country, a bill passed in thehouse of commons, climate accountability act. when it went to the senate, the conservative senators were instructed to kill it at the first opportunity. history ofime in the this country appointed senators have killed a bill without a single day of study in the senate of canada. mr. wells: did you ask the senators to stop the bill? we cannot force them to do anything.
we asked them to support the party position. facts of thet the parliament under this government, this is often not reported. people voting more freely than in decades. more private members of legislation that have gone through parliament and multiple governments before. that is the reality of the situation. mr. trudeau: i was there -- i was there. in 75as the first time years, and on what subject? the most important issue facing future generations. i do not want my grandchildren to bear the burden for wrongheaded choices. mr. harper admitted he asked the
o kill a billote t adopted by the house of commons. what a lack of respect than asking unelected people to defeat a bill voted on and adopted by the elected parliament. mr. harper: we asked them to stick to principles. legislation has been blocked frequently by the senate. ms. may: never. harper: we have 22 vacancies. mr. trudeau: you broke your promise 59 times. for three years we left 20 vacancies in the senate. finally, to get government legislation moving in the senate, 2008 i said i would appoint senators. we have done so. now that we don't need to, we
have stopped. mr. trudeau, you just said there are no liberal centers. -- senators could go to the website, there are 29 liberal senators. >> you have told maclean's no quebec premier would ever support -- is that not a problem? is in issue i understand. this issue th begins with a mandate. mr. harper has refused to attend a single meeting since coming prime minister. eetings awo mi
year. i'm not afraid of sitting down with my provincial colleagues. of course i'm going to sit down with them instead of dictating a big cut like mr. harper did. i would ask for a mandate october 19 and start the hard work i have started come a meeting with the premiers to get this undemocratic institution a relic from our colonial past. your position was for your years in quebec. long-standings a position since the unilateral page reaction. every quebec government has said that. that is why i am not hesitant to sit down and work on this tough issue. i believe sincerely the only way to deal with the senate is to get rid of eight.
$1 billion has been spent on the senate under his watch. he has done nothing about abolition or reform. imagine how many childcare spaces we could have greeted with $1 billion. may: the way the greens advocate we change the way we make decisions in canada to create a space where we can work together is to create a council of canadian governments. federal, provincial, territorial. as well as first nations. we need to deal with the senate. it is not my top priority because it is hard and will require opening up the constitution. we think we should amend the amending formula so canadians can change the constitution by referendum. wells: the pragmatist or
said there are liberal senators. we have released the senators so they can be independent. some have chosen to continue to call themselves liberals. unlike what mr. harper said which it is he directed though cinders to vote along the party lines, i have not done that and i no longer have the power to do that over senators formerly in the liberal caucus. we feel the decisions made in the upper house should be independent of the political maneuverings. harper: they vote the party line every time. to think of a changed now that they are senate liberals. during the most recent provincial election, the new liberals onall the stage to thank them for doing his fund-raising. the bagman of the liberal party are still in the senate.
ms. may: here's a surprise. larry campbell endorsed me. after wells: stay with us for the final round. >> we are taking a live look at the university of british columbia, packed as people tune into the debate. welcome back. we approach the final leg of this debate. justin, what are you thinking so far on round two? mulcair was quite strong. he went after the prime minister. of the prime minister looks weak on democratic reform. herself and by
knowing her numbers and facts and having a concise message. at least she got into the debate. >> i agree. i thought the prime minister had to be worried going into the section on democracy in the senate. battered and bruised. he held his own. >> what you think of the comment, it is not his job to apologize for the actions of others. >> given the top us the question, it was an awkward answer but what should he say? >> harper was good on the separation. that was one of his stronger points. he was on the hot seat again, taking attacks. we have heard, that is not true so many times. trudeau has performed well on the issue of the senate. harper taking a lot of heat. canadians are piping about
these issues on facebook. the head of public policy from facebook. , to go in favor of that. >> a clear preference. 83% saying we should change the system. >> not surprising. >> often times people will say governance doesn't matter. a clear preference, second-highest topic discussed for the election. >> an important idea discussed to read we will hear more about it over the next few months. >> be sure to tune in after the debate as we explore the issues on a number of fronts. how canadians are responding in person and online. we will hear from the moderator about being in the middle of the action.
the party leaders are here to take on the final issue. mr. wells: welcome back to read the final topic is foreign policy and security. if there ever was a distinction about the choices canada makes abroad, it vanished last october byn people inspired international terrorist movements murdered people in ottawa. canadian security is being challenged in iraq and syria. our commitment to our allies is tested in eastern europe. our relations with the u.s. and is anothering powers
area of controversy. we will discuss canada and the world. our first question on this goes to mr. mulcair. canadians are reluctant to send canadians into combat but they are also willing to defend canadian values when necessary. the historic reluctance has never been tested in power. would an ndp government send troops or jet fighters into combat? mr. mulcair: we have shown that willingness in the past in the case of the u.n. mandate such as libya. we withdrew that when they changed the nature of the mission they were asking us to support. prime minister's consulted me in sending in their lift can airlift capability
and somalia. before i would send in our brave men and women in uniform, i will think about them and their families. and make sure we have a clearly defined mission and exit strategy. harper why when mr. started his most recent adventure in iraq, we said no, this is not something can do should be involved in to read we agree on the importance in fighting terrorism but the question is when do we put troops in harms way? we thought in that case it was inappropriate. wells: all the traditional allies support the mission was against isis in iraq and syria. is that not broad enough? multilateralism is a canadian approach. mission, and nato american led mission.
that u.n. mission, unlike i referred to in libya a couple of years ago. are taking a wrongheaded approach and a lot of the horrors are a result of the last this guided war. i think canada got it right when we said we would stay out of the 2003 war. we are seeing the results of that wrongheaded decision now. the first response goes to elizabeth may. may: that vote when everyone voted for the bombardment of libya took place after the mission had changed. -- mission was to suspect for tech to civilians from omar could off a. protect civilians from qaddafi. we did that knowing those rebel forces included al qaeda.
the only member of the parliament who voted against this. a warehouse full of arms belonging to qaddafi ended up being emptied out by hoodlums and terrorists and to stabilizing mali. some of those weapons ended up in the hands of isis. how could we as a country that has always stood for peacekeeping, whited every member vote to continue bombardment when everything i said was clear? mr. harper: we are always going to -- mr. mulcair: we will evaluate it based on whether it is a u.n. mission and whether it had morphed for a regime change. opposed to every
single use of military. mr. harper is in use of every possible use. we are going to take a balanced approach that would take into account canadian values. mr. wells: do you think we need a u.n. mandate before we send canadian troops abroad? is a clear: it indicator but there are other situations where we should not. i supported afghanistan and kosovo. i am proud to have among us in our great team of candidates the former commander on the ground in afghanistan. the liberal party knows canada to playrtant role around the world promoting peace and security. where i disagree with the prime minister is not that canada should not have a role against isil. i just disagree with the
approach he has. mr. harper has not seen a where he has not wanted to get involved entry that is clear when he supported george w. war in iraq. canada should have a role to play but it should be the right one that should help the local forces fight and win the war for themselves. that's why support training, not combat. : your opponents say you have not seen a war you have not liked. mr. harper: we have not gotten involved in many actions but we are involved in the war against isis. it is not a few nato allies. all of our nato allies support this. not only nato. virtually all of the countries of the muslim region support this. is this organization has become the global nerve center of a violent jihadist movement that is literally
slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. to the region and a glow. it has singled out canadians by name and demonstrated the ability to carry out attacks in countries like ours. it would be foolish for us not to go after this group before they come after us. i am proud of the job the men and women are doing taking this on in concert with our allies and i think it is supported by canadians because they understand. mr. wells: if not i so then who? mr. harper: we support being part of the -- mr. trudeau: we agree in being part of the coalition, we just us agree that bombing is the way to do this. anre has to be a clear plan,
expectation of success. our reasonable justification of the specific action canada is taking. not just come of these people are bad therefore we need to do something. it means we have to be thoughtful. our allies and quite frankly canadians expect us to be thoughtful about our approach. if we arething is, going to send his troops overseas, we need to make sure we are taking care of them when they come home. mr. harper has failed our dime in by nickel and them. not giving them the service, the help they need. should bemething we ashamed of. the government that likes to wrap itself in the flag is not caring for those people who have fought, injured, and died. mr. harper: this government has made record investments in veterans. 35% more than when we came to office.
the central question, isis, what mission our is the allies think we should be doing. these are the priorities. hit them in the air. help people like kurds on the ground. has provided no rational reason for why he is slugst that other than to the military. it is in the vital interests of our country. you have to be able to make these kinds of decisions as prime minister. may: it is tricky. we are bombing in syria and we do not have permission from a sod. -- assad. loss ofl war has caused life, 4 million refugees. we did not do anything.
that was not isis murdering people. that was a civil war where the factions within the muslim world are slaughtering each other. isis is taking advantage of that. assad?on the side of no. are we going to bomb isis? some people said they were helpful. wells: a lot of crisis areas are intricate parts of the world. ms. may: why does this group of thugs put their horrific acts on youtube? because they want to draw all's into the region. they are following an ancient ext not official t which they claim is a muslim book of revelations, but only if infidels are in the right base to attack. we are doing what they want when we go in with bombing missions.
ukraine,: you claim -- eastern europe. article five says if the nato nation's attack, all nato nations must respond to would your government uphold article five in eastern europe? ukraine not being a member of nato, i'm not sure it would pertain. we will of course support nato. of nato.oud members that is why made reference to the fact that should be one of our multilateral cornerstones, whether it is a nato mission. the mission in iraq is not a neato mission. -- a nato mission. is a danger. we stand firmly with ukraine against the aggression. but there are things canada can
and should be doing. our allies have a complete list of people being section. -- sanctioned. two key players. peopleper is sheltering not on the list. why are these two individuals being blocked by our allies and you are giving them a free pass? mr. harper: let me be clear about how we have handled sanctions. sanctioned not just russian officials but ukrainian nected withon the previous list. all of the allies have slightly different list. the objective is to damage putin while trying to minimize damage to our own. we follow with those lists and they do the same. on thecair: these are lists of all of our closest
allies. mr. harper is refusing to put them on the list and now he is refusing to tell canadians why. mr. wells: we are going to wrap up this part on security. heading into one final round of questions. justin trudeau. difficultad to make decisions on wars and security. opposing the international action against isil. antiterrorismm -- bills in parliament. the government of canada and prime minister is expected to do two things to read the first is to keep us safe and to uphold and freedoms. mr. harper doesn't think we need to do anything more to protect rights and freedoms. tair doesn't think
we need to do anything more on security. we must do both of them. we supported the legislation because there were specific elements that immediately and concretely protect canadian security. we are committed to revealing the problematic elements highlighted and bringing in the proper oversight that our allies have. protectinge we are and bringing in sunset and review clause. narrowing and specifying the definitions. we encourage the government to bring insignificant amendments that removed a number of problematic elements. we will continue to be productive and constructive in not pretending there is a political choice to be made. perhaps it was naive.
perhaps there was something i put forward and said, we can take a responsible position at a time of politics of attack and division. mr. harper wants everyone to be scared. lcair once us to be scared for rights and freedoms. any canadian government needs to do them both together and that is what the liberal party has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate in terms of getting the balance right. the to welcome -- make ofs: what do you mr. trudeau's position? harper: our view is very clear, freedom and security go hand in hand. moving we face is a serious menace to the planet. what we did developing
legislation is looked at what modern powers, police and security agencies have. make sure we are up to those standards. we provided come on trudeau talks about oversight. we have moved it in a different direction. we haven't done by independent experts, people experts in the field. they are chaired. chaired by prominent former judges. i think that is a robust system. i don't support this kind of oversight. i support parliamentarian oversight on legislation. that is our role, to draft and make laws. when it comes to the operations of government, i don't think those things should be policy sized. -- politicized.
ms. may: there is no oversight. if you look at security experts, and i urge anyone watching to find evidence, that safe.kes us less it is not confronting terrorism. it is likely to make us less likely to disrupt plots well at the same time eroding freedoms. the evidence under oath was this legislation is dangerous. i colleagues in the u.k. if there is anything canada the answer was no, they are seen on a tragedy waiting to happen. we all agree we canadians from terrorism. we strongly believe you have to do that without trampling on the rights of canadians.
prime series of former minister's, supreme court justices, top legal experts represents bill c 51 a threat to our rights and freedoms with nothing in return, captured by existing legislation, we have one clear answer. repeal bill c 51. mr. wells: should you give any police?o the left absinthe the question of domestic radicalization. president obama will talk about working with houses of worship. andharper points out singles out mosques. he knows why he is using that language.
he is about to sign that person's papers. mr. wells: are you using codewords? mr. harper: every piece of legislation, the ndp has opposed. what we have done in the latest legislation are things like of alan security organizations to share information on terrorist threats. thingting the kind of that happened in october. i believe it is important we call the international jihadist threat what it is. anybody that thinks that is labeling islam's, muslims are of thisrity of victims movement.