tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 30, 2015 6:00am-8:01am EDT
of what you are held accountable for that. negligent discharges one of the worst things you can do. do. we need to inculcate culture whereas cyber discharges considered just as bad and make sure it is inculcated throughout the force. >> i agree, but the abnormal is assaulted by the telecoms who want to tie his hands behind his back by doing all of the encryption. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in our state naval warfare center has taken the lead on much of our efforts to protect against the threat of counterfeit electronics. and so secretary working director clapper, the global supply chain for microelectronics prevents -- presents a growing challenge for cyber security. one of the things we saw recently ibm sold its
chipmaking facilities when dod trusted foundry that us to a foreign-owned competitor. i was wondering, your top priorities in managing the risk posed by globalization of our microelectronics manufacturing capabilities and our abilities to protect her systems in that area. >> that is a big question and will be one of the key things that we look at in this fall review because of, as you said, the recent sale of ibm chips. there are two schools of thought on this. some say you do not need a trusted foundry and another group says you absolutely have to have it. having confidence inhaving confidence in the chips that we put in our weapon systems is important, and i would expect that come february we will be able to report out the final decisions through the fall review on how to tackle this problem.
>> who was in the department of defense leadership has primary responsibility for overseeing the supply chain risk management? >> frank kendall and dla. dla has the supply chain, and frank kendall is focused on the trusted chip, that the fabrication of trusted chips. >> one of the areas that we look at in regards to cyber, and in some ways, you know, technology in particular parts is in the nuclear area. and so are there any specific groups that are focus just on protecting our nuclear efforts against cyber? >> there is the national -- the end in sa and and nuclear weapons council which is cochaired by frank kendall, undersecretary of defense, and vice chairman of the joint chiefs, the
ones that work with doe to make sure our weapon system components are reliable and trusted him to make sure that we have ahave a safe, reliable, and effective nuclear deterrent. >> admiral,, when we look at building a force of cyber warriors, how can we use the national guard and reserves to help do that? because it strikes me that that can help us and retaining highly qualified individuals who want to devote part of their life to help oura country command it would seem to almost be a perfect fit for us. >> we have taken a total force approach which includes both guard and reserve, every service slightly different, not the least of which have different services have different release in regard structures. one of the challenges we are trying to work our way through is under the title
three to piece, how we coordinate, how we generate capacity and bring it to bear with maximum efficiency. the two things in partnering , because we are taking a total force approach we need one standard. we dodo not want a place with regard and reserve are trained on one standard and the active side is trained to a different. that gives us maximum flexibility. and secondly,secondly, we need one comment unit structure. we don't want to build unique one-of-a-kind structures in the guard and reserve that do not match the title ten side. treat this as one integrated force and give the guard and reserve great kudos with common vision and a great exercise series cyberguard we are using every year will bring together the guard, privateguard, private
sector, active component in government and work our way through the specifics. >> director clapper, and i apologize if you already answered this, what is the one cyber challenge you are most concerned about? >> well, obviously the one that i think about would be a massive again like scale attack against our infrastructure. that is not -- we don't consider that the most likely probability right now. the greater threat are the low to moderate threats. what i have seen in the five years i have beenn this job is a progression where these get more aggressive and damaging. as i indicated in my oral statement of the outset, what, what i will see -- i
think what we can expect next our data manipulation which are then calls to question the integrity of the data which in many ways is more insidious than the kind of attacks that we have suffered this far. so the specter is this massive attack, although attack, although it is not likely. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you,you, mr. chairman. annex three of the recently signed a ran nuclear agreement calls for the participating countries to work with iran to strengthen ayn rand's ability to protect against and response to nuclear security threats, including sabotage as well
as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security had physical protection systems. secretary, do you think this portion of the iran nuclear agreement, the annex to include cyber threat, meaning that the p5 plus one countries who are part of this agreement will be expected, will be deemed to have an obligation under the agreement to assist he ran in developing systems to prevent other countries using cyber is to acquire information about or to disrupt the operations of progress nuclear capabilities? >> well, i will say that i trust that this is not going to prevent us from gleaning intelligence from our traditional sources. in the interest of verifying
the agreement,agreement, which will be principally monitored by international organization, iaea. so i am not aware of any ability to collect on their behavior and compliance. >> but why would we want to give a ran the ability to defend against cyber weapons that we or perhaps our allies might one day want to use it against? >> well, in this open environment there are aspects of that i cannot discuss. happy to talk with you privately or in a classified environment about that. >> okay. but you are not disputing the fact that the agreement says that we would have to -- >> no. >> okay. now can you tell me, and this environment what
specific technical assistance will be offering herein in this portion of the agreement? >> i honestly don't know the answer to that question. i don't know exactly what is in mind there. >> now, would any of these capabilities once acquired by iran prevent or inhibit the united states or any of our allies, any other enemy iran from using any cyber measure against iranian nuclear facilities? >> again, i am reluctant to discuss that in this setting. >> were you consulted during the nuclear negotiations thing connection with this portion of the agreement? >> deeply involved throughout the negotiations. >> can you describe the nature of any consultation that you had with them
master this portion of annex three? >> with the iranians? >> yes. >> no, i did not engage. >> that is not what i'm asking. if you could describe your discussions with us negotiators as they came to you and consulted with you on the implications of this annex a three. >> my lead for this was the -- known to many of you in this committee, and he was the direct participant. i do not want to speak for him to the extent to which she was involved or consulted on that provision. i would have to ask him. >> but you would have been aware of this consultation going on. i am sure that he came to you and said, this is going to impact our ability to do but we need to do with respect to a ran.
>> again, i would rather discuss with the potential response of ours could be in a closed setting. >> okay. secretary, how is the department working to ensure that the hardware and software on some of these major programs we are developing the future contingencies and technological advances so that they can continue to draft -- address emerging cyber threats well into the future without major overhauls of the entire system. >> as i said, we are putting into kp piece or key performance parameters on
any knew system specific cyber hardening requirements much like during the cold war where we had emp requirements for systems. the problem is that wehe faces many of the old systems are still in service were not built to respond to the cyber threats that we see today. we are having to go back through older systems, determine which ones are vulnerable, prioritize them, and make fixes. it alsoit also goes back to senator donald is question of trusted foundry. trying to determine the best way we have reliable and trusted microelectronics. >> my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. if there is an attack on the physical infrastructure of this country i do not want to go on cable news and say the administration told us the policy is still in development. we have got to get on this. we have been talking about
it for years. this was not an essential part of our national defense authorization act. the idea that we can continue to simply defend and never have an offensive capability i just think is ignoring this enormous threat which we all agree. let me ask a one-word answer questions each of you. doing needed and offense of capability in the cyber realm in order to act as a deterrent? >> winning a broad range of response options -- >> do we need an offense of cyber capability? >> i wouldi would say yes, sir. >> secretary, director clapper. >> absolutely. >> yes. >> thank you. the 2nd part of that is that it cannot be secret.
our instinct is to make everything secret, and the whole point is that it not be. we need to establish what we have. i suspect we do have significant offense of capability, but it must be made public. i think another question that needs to be addressed that i do not necessarily think in terms of the policy, we need to define what an active war is cyber area. whether hitting sony pictures is an act of war or the opm command how you draw those lines, and i suggest that that has got to be part of this policy definition. it is urgent. we simply cannot defend ourselves by saying it was complicated. changing the subject slightly, do you believe
that the dispersion of responsibility in the federal government as a potential problem? it strikes me that we have got agencies and departments and bureaus, i suspect you could name 15 if you tried, that all have some responsibility. doing need to strengthen cyber command? >> i would not make cyber command such a repository. we have got to simplify the structure. who do you want me to go to? talk to the fbi, dhs comeau why can't i deal with you? if i am a financial company should i be talking to the sector construct we have created? we have got to try to simplify this. >> i had to that, one of the
reasons why i had a very brief commercial just within the intelligence community of integrating the cyber picture, but common operating picture from within intelligence let alone what we do to react to protect. which is one important thing. i have come to believe that we need along the lines of the many and ctc are in cpc. >> i would hope that that would -- and the leadership and decision-making has to start with the white house, the administration for an all of the government approach to dealing with this dispersion of responsibility problem. a lot of talk about china and our ability to interact and to respond and told china responsible.
it is not the subject of this hearing, but the fact that we have china trillions of dollars compromises our ability to interact with china and a firm way. it is a complicated relationship which is one of the things that makes it difficult. now, do you have any idea what brought that change to the table for this recent agreement with president? >> it appears that the threat of the potential economic sanctions, particularly imposing them right before the visit of president g got their attention which is why they dispatched minister mom to try to come to some sort of agreement, which is what ensued subsequently. >> and i agree that it is not a definitive agreement or treaty but i do agree
that it is a step in the right direction and at least these issues are being discussed. colton -- countries ultimately only act in there own self-interest. we have to convince them that it is in their interest to cut out this activity that is detrimental to our country. >> one quick comment. just because we have not published a policy it is so broad and encompassing going over things like encryption, the types of authorities we need. if we had an attack tonight we do not have the structure in place right now with the national security team to get together to try to understand who caused the attack to understand the implications of the attack and what response we should take. those are in place right now >> but the whole point of being able to responded to
turned so that the attack will not occur. if you have a doomsday doomsday machine and no one knows, it is useless. having a secret plan as to how we respond is not the point i am trying to get at. they have to know how people respond and therefore not attack in the 1st place. thank you for your testimony. >> on the recognize sen. fisher. >> thank you, sen. reid. following up a little bit where little bit were senator king was going, many of you talked about establishing norms in cyberspace.cyberspace. do you think it is possible to establish or maintain that without enforcement behaviors? when we look at publicly identifying those who are responsible for inactivity were imposing costs on them, can we do that? >> well, trying to establish these norms are helpful.
in the cold war there was agreement that we would not attack each of our early warning missile launch warning satellites. so establishing these norms are important, but they will be extremely difficult because the enforcement mechanisms are far more difficult because it is much more easy to attribute missile attacks. i believe that this agreement with china is a good 1st step, that we should strive to establish norms between nationstates and establish norms which we believe are beyond the bounds had to try to establish mechanisms by which we can work these through, but this will be very difficult because of the -- it is much more difficult. >> and we have the added problem, of course, the norms are applicable to
nationstates and you have a whole range of non- nation state actors who would not necessarily subscribe to these norms and would be a challenge to deal with even if there were nationstate each will agreement. >> i would echo the comments of my teammates. i am struck by being a captive of my early experience. at the height of the cold war we knew exactly how far between the soviets and thus, ee could push each other. very aggressive behavior. we developed a section of norms, we actually developed a set ofa set of signals over time so that we could communicate with each other. i am comfortable that we will achieve this over time in the nationstate arena,
but it is the state actors that complicate this to me and will make it difficult. >> what we are attached. how do we impose cost? do we respond? can we look at other ways to respond in an appropriate manner with sanctions. what would you look at? >> what we talked about previously is we want to make sure we don't look at this more broadly and think across the breadth of capabilities and the advantages and bring it all to bear as we're looking at options as to what we do and that it is a case-by-case basis. there is no single one-size-fits-all answer, but more broadly than just cyber. >> correct. would you agree? do you see a variety of options out they're?
and wouldn't it be more beneficial as a country to be able to have a policy that is a public policy on what those options could be and the consequences that would be felt when we are attacked? >> absolutely. and andabsolutely. and that is what i say about a broad policy we will respond in a time,a time, place, and manner of our own choosing. there is an asymmetry. they are all authoritarian states. they attack surfaces that they have are far smaller than what we have. we value that, but we are more vulnerable than our adversaries. we may sometimes have to respond proportionately but a different way than aa simple
cyber response. it might be sanctions, criminal indictment, other reactions. we believe very strongly that this is something, and interagency process that is established where they are taken care of on a case-by-case basis. >> is the administration have a definition of what constitutes a cyber attack? >> any type of malicious activity which causes other damage or theft of information or ip,all of those are under either cyber malicious cyber activities, it might be espionage, in each case there is no defined redlined for what would constitute -- >> what would be the difference between a cyber attack in cyber vandals? >> well,well, you would have to make a case-by-case determination. of course important consideration in terms of reaction would be
attribution. again, it would be a case-by-case. and cyber vandalism, is that stealing information? >> the attack by north korea on sony was described by the president as cyber vandalism ii was wondering on how you distinguished that definition from the cyber attack. >> it did not affect a national security entity, but it certainly did cause damage to a company, and in that case, and this is an important illustration of when we could attribute very cleanly and there was uniform agreement across the intelligence community to attribute that attack to the north koreans, and we did sanction them. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. before i start on beginning to focus on cyber policy, we are all concerned about the allegations of leadership distorting the assessment of intelligence officers related to the fight, and i understand there is an ongoing investigation and i'm going to wait for the results of that investigation, but as a member of this committee and the intelligence committee i want to,i want to, in the strongest terms possible impress upon you the importance for all of us to receive absolutely objective and unbiased assessments and look forward to the results of the investigation and expect that you will hold accountable anyone who has failed in their duty in the intelligence community them matter how high up the chain that may go.
>> well, senator, you brought up an important consideration here, which is a great concern to me. i am a son of an army intelligence officer,, and i have served in various intelligence capacities for 52 years ranging from my 1st tour in southeast asia to my service now has the longest tenured dni, and it is a almost sacred writ in intelligence and the intelligence profession never to politicize intelligence. i do not engage in it, never have,it, never have, and do not condone and when identified. having said that, and i completely agree with you, in spite of all of the media hyperbole my think it is best we'll await the outcome
of the department of defense ig investigation to determine whether and to what extent there was any politicization of intelligence. i will also say that the intelligence assessments come to the national level only to the defense intelligence agency. and to the extent evaluator and filter for what flows into the national intelligence arena. >> thank you, director. turning to you, admiral rogers, your responsibilities include strengthening cyber defense and cyber deterrence posture, and iposture, and i want to return to a line of questioning several of my colleagues that have begun this morning. as you know, the breach of opm computers resulted in an enormous loss
of sensitive personal information. thus far to my knowledge the us has not responded command plan to put it in the words of deputy secretary word, we have not impose the cost which raises questions about whether we truly have developed the mechanisms for proportionate response to cyber attacks against the united states government even after the april 15 publication. we know that the foreign agent have been caught trying to steal us personnel files in a less digital age they would kick them out of the country if they were a diplomat or throw them in jail if they were not. that would be considered aa proportionate response, but in the case of the opm breach the us government seems on proportionate. i wanti want to ask you three questions and let you take them as you may.
what constitutes an act of war in cyberspace? has the united states decided on a portion of response in the case of the opm cyber espionage case, and what types of information gathering by nationstates, governments are legitimate, and what types are not? >> well, first, i am the operational commander command all three of the questions to just asked a much broader than that. >> in terms of the three things we define, the bottom line is clearly we are working our way through that. the parameters we want to use to define an act of war, my going in position is to build on the framework we have developed over time which is a good departure, a broad framework. the 2nd question was about
-- my note to myself. >> proportional response. >> again, what are the parameters? is it the intent, is it scaled? is it you can do espionage at some level, but if you trip some magic threshold, 20 million records, 10 million records, some skill components of this. we are clearly still trying to work our way through that issue command there is no one-size-fits-all answer. i think there is recognition which is what has driven this broad discussion. could youcould you repeat again the types of information? >> my time has expired.
>> go ahead. >> we would like to see more transparency. the although the other side knowing what that turned was was absolutely critical for it to be effective. what types of information is considered legitimate unacceptable. >> i agree that that is an important part. a sense of consequence. >> the contrast with the cold war is a good one to think about in that i think the concern that people are raising is, should there be redlines?
that is really what this get down student. it was freewheeling as far as us collecting intelligence against the soviet union. it was very difficult for both -- well, more so for us. and, of course, underlying the backdrop was the nuclear deterrent which restrained behavior even though it got rough at times as the example that apple watch or cited in aa maritime context, but they were ground rules that govern did we arewe are sort of in the wild west to cyber whether or no limits that we have agreed on, no redlines and collecting information, which is what the breach represented.
>> i would likei would like to thank you for your forthright and candid assessment and also the lesson that all of us are getting is that we have to have some policy decisions command you have been helpful in flushing out for us. >> i would like to return to an exchange is russia and violation of their obligations? >> we believe a system they have been development would violate the treaty. >> and you said just now, i thought ii thought i heard you say that it is not deployed are not yet operationally capable. is that correct? >> that is my understanding. it is in development,command we have indicated our concern with the russians. if they did deploy it to
the context of maybe another six months reset on training but more importantly based upon current funding streams and plan, are we going to be able to wife had? >> right now the most likely scenario is staying slightly ahead. trying to overcome a different approach. it is not a criticism. it led toit led to a different prioritization, different level of effort and investment strategy. clearly we are going to have to change that at a time when budgets are going down and threats not just in cyber more broadly are proliferating. i do not envy the choices that need to be made. in the near-term the most likely scenario is how can
we focus on the best investments that maximize the defensive capability of continuing to help us retain the advantage we do right now. >> thank you. this question may be for secretary worked. the announcement about the agreement with china that we are not going to basically attack each other, in the face of the compelling evidence we have, why is this agreement positive if with the smoking gun information we have right now, we have a prettya pretty strong base of evidence to say that they are guilty. if they deny it, why does this agreement mean anything? >> we made it clear through a wide variety of efforts that this would be something foremost in the discussions. we have made it is clear as possible at every level from
the president on down. we believe that this is a good 1st step as a confidence building measure where china can either demonstrate that they are serious about establishing norms and going after cyber crimes, but the proof will be in the pudding. i agree with the director in demo. it will be up to the chinese demonstrate that they are serious. >> with the manipulation of commercial data falling within the definition of theft under this agreement? >> specifically one part of it is the theft of intellectual property for commercial advantage in chinese state enterprise, and we have agreed at least have made a tentativea tentative agreement that we will not do those type of activities. china has done them in the past.
it will be up to them to prove that they will not do it in the future. >> the committee has gone on a while, but the senator made some important points. at what point we will be have clear definitions about wine activities in cyberspace being asked of war or terrorism and have appropriate responses the baby through cyber, sanctions, orcyber, sanctions, or other? when will be received that clarity? >> i don't believe he will ever have a definitive one-size-fits-all definition everyevery single attack will be have to handled on a case-by-case basis command you will have to judge the damage that was caused, who made the attack, was it a nonstate actor. we would havewe would have to go after that person in terms of criminal activity. i don't believe you will
have a specific definition this is if this happens we will trigger this response. each one we willeach one we will be handled on a case-by-case basis and the partial. >> thank you. the only concern i have is when you are not establishing some level of known deterrent. i understand the complexities of it. i worked in the field, but i think that without that clarity you are more likely to have more things to look at and figure out how to do a situation response. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen for your testimony. i was looking for the transcript of the joint press conference, the pres. of china i think publicly stated that they do not engage in these kind of cyber activities. was that an accurate statement, if that was what he said?
>> it is pretty remarkable if you are in a press conference with the head of state. seems to be pretty blatantly false. >> well, it is. apart from the statements, at least for our part b-uppercase-letter what happens now, will there be a change in behavior? and as i said earlier, hope springs eternal but i am personally someone of a skeptic. it will be our responsibility to look for the presence or absence of their intellectual property and other information. >> we were aware of the negotiations, at least
normal intelligence would not be a voice or shape of a policy agreement like this. it -- our responsibility is report they do. who participated in the build up visit in terms of policy development, but in terms of what went on to the leaders of the nation's were not directly consulted. >> and i was aware of the ongoing process. same thing. >> you did not see the terms of the agreement, did you? let's assume that past is prologue. intellectual property, country trying to get the
chinese to stop stealing us intellectual property for decades really and it has not really worked out very well. let's assume that this agreement, that there is some additional cyber theft what would you recommend the actions of the united states should be, particularly in light of this agreement? >> i would not be able to answer that. i would have to no the degree of activity. >> let's say another opm kind of activity. >> the department of defense would recommend a vigorous response. >> and what would you -- i mean, give me a sense of what the the? >> it could be any, maybe all of the above. it will depend upon the severity of the activity.
but i no that this is -- i no that this is a big.of contention the committee. it is -- we are serious about cost and position, and our statement is if you participate in this activity we will seek some type of measure which imposes cost upon you. we justwe just do not think it is a proportional cyber attack. it might be something entirely different. >> let me ask kind of a related question. i no you have been discussing this, so i am sorry if i am going over areas already discussed, but help us think through the issue of rules of engagement. we have rules of engagement and so many other spheres of the military, how do we think through these issues which of theare the fundamental aspects of what we do in response to cyber attacks? admiral?
>> if you look at the defensive side, i am comfortable that we have got a good for broad recognition >> do we? i mean, come between us and other nations? >> if you define it between us and other nations, i apologize. if you want to expand it to a broader set of nations it is probably fair to say no. >> i will agree. i think that when it comes to offenses -- if you are thinking about cyber warfare we probably did not have defined rules of engagement. i agree withagree with what director clapper said earlier, this is the wild west. a lot of activity going on.
so sorting through each of the different attacks and trying to attribute what happened and who it came from and who is responsible all demand specific responses on these attacks, but i agree totally with the committee that we need to strengthen our deterrence posture, have the best way is to continue to work through these things and make sure everyone knows that there will be some type of cost. >> thank you. thank you, mr. ch. >> the committee would also like to know when they will be a policy that would fit into these attacks and would then be much more easily responded to if we had a policy, as mandated by there 2014 defense authorization bill? i think the witnesses for a helpful hearing.
♪ ♪ ♪ >> russia currently leaders are not simply political rulers. >> i'm not prepared to sacrifice the african content for ideology. >> you have to a come back and your safe enough. >> it's time to change. >> you don't know what to say. it's going to say something. >> i believe the 21st century will belong to china because
mostle centuries have belonged o china. >> blaming barack obama for the state that the world is in right now it's like blaming a caribbean island for a hurricane. >> the lesson for north korea, manages to acquire devices, you remain a third-world country. >> do it wither your own sons ad daughters, not with mine. >> welcome to the monk debate on canada foreign policy. it's my privilege to have the opportunity to host tonight historic proceedings, the first ever federal election debate
devoted exclusively to foreign policy issues. first, the national television audience tuning into this debate in french and english and across north america on c-span, also a warm hello to our online audience watching the debate in french and english on monkdebate.com and website of facebook canada. finally, hello to you the over 3,000 members of the monk debate who filled to capacity for this --
conservative party of canada. finally, let me welcome mr. mr. justin trude, leader of the party of canada. >> we are glad to have you three on stage. you've all agreed to the rules of the debate in advance and i want to quote for a friendly reminder that leaders will respect each other's rights of speak in order to make points uninterrupted. let's get started. right now the world is largest human -- humanitarian crisis with conflict in syria. your plans to pull canada's military forces else from col alition fighting isis, for you is the threat the islamic
represents doesn't justify a military response, when do they use military force? >> you have 90 seconds to respond. >> we can help stop and canada will remain a member, but only 12 are involved in the combat mission. >> it's important to remember that here this evening we are in the same room where we had jack layton and i will continue jaques work -- jake's work and i will sustain economic development.
we want to project into the world, we don't want canada that pollutes and goes to war. we want canada that respect values. >> this election is about change and there's no area where canadians want change more than than foreign affairs. we have to make sure that we have a place on the world stage, we missed our turn on security counsel. we have to take care of issue of climate change. i'llm defend your canadian valus rr -- where mr. harper failed. >> seven minute one-on-one. >> mr. harper, what's your opinion on this subject? our response to this crisis in
the region is generous and balanced response. our response to the refugees are humanitarian, aide. we're giving generous but responsible refugee policy. we are bringing additional humanitarian aids to the world. obviously participating in military effort against ie -- isis. this is an organization that wants to use as international base for terrorist operations. not just in the region but also this country. that's why we are there with our allies and there's broad international support for this intervention that is necessary not just for the region but to protect our own security interest. >> well, it's important to remember that this is not a nato
mission, united nations mission, going back to your question going back to duty to protect, it was completely different. withdrew our support. the answer to your question is we understand that there will be times that either under the nato charter or international obligations with the un to use force and we won't shy away from that. the real question here is that the only thing we can do -- mr. harper always takes the same approach. when your own tools is to hammer, but this is a complex situation, it has many years of divisive conflict in the region, and there is one area where canada is completely failing and that is in dealing with the refugee crisis. my own family, the irish side came during 1840's, you know what, in quebec went down and
people took the most miserable in the world. that's canada. that's who we are. they were taken in the muslim countries, today turkey. that's the opening world that we can always aspire too. we are not doing enough for that to happen. mr. harper is not going to get near that number. they want 46,000. the government will get it done. >> none of the allies, none of them are opposed to it. they are against the islamic state. united nations is not oppose. in terms of refugees, canada's response has been generous and
responsible. we have admitted so far 15% of auld the world refugees from the region. in terms of response of the recent crisis before headlines, i announced to accept additional refugees. the number changes to our system to expedite the number and we are doing so well at the same time making sure that we choose the refugees, the most vulnerable people and also maintain an all-standards of security and other screening. this is a generous and responsible approach. >> just to refocus. we will have ample opportunity to talk about the crisis later in the debate. does it fall where government would intervene and the criteria? >> sure, it happens -- prime minister consulted with me when france was looking for heavy-air lift capacity. i agreed. i gave you the example.
with regard to isis there are things we can be doing. canada are the only countries not to have sign it had arms trade treaty. countries like saudi arabia, iran, north korea, belarus, those are not the countries we normally identify. that treaty when enforced can stop flow to isis. both speak very specifically, we can be involved in that. on the flow of foreign fighters, never forget that many mr. harper's bill, there was nothing on the radicalization here at home.
2500 more police officers. we have to work with faith groups of all descriptions. mr. harper has one group in mind and tends to finger point. he doesn't talk about how houses of worship, he specifically refer to mosques. >> prime minister, again. >> let's be clear, government of canada is pursuing all levels of response, not just refugees and humanitarian response like i mentioned. in canada in terms of financing, the organizations were with coalition partners, working on all of those issues. none of that explains why the other parties think we should not also not take direct military action with our key allies against islamic state. this is a group would slaughter millions of people in its way
but intention to attack -- launch terrorist attacks around the world and including against this country and as indicated has capacity to engineer these attacks. we see that all around the world. we have a clear reason for being there, why we would aband on the mission, it's a question. we have to be able to the all of those things and also take an isis directly in the region. we keep pressure on the organization so it cannot use for terrorist operation. >> mr. trudue, thank you very much. first of all, now there's the engagement in the middle east that we know is going to be long-term. >> what we have here is three different perspectives on what we need to actually do. mr. molcair doesn't think we
shouldn't be this fight at all. mr. harper doesn't want to send canadian troops. the liberal party as we have in the past know that canada has an important role to play on the world stage and should be a strong partner in this coalition, we disagree with mr. harper. we think that canada as we did successfully in afghanistan for many years as we've done many many places around the globe, should be training the local forces so they can defeat isis on the ground because we know that sending in western troops isn't always the best possible outcome and indeed often makes things worst. we need to ensure that treating the local people and canada has strong and real capacity to do that. that ties with something that president obama was talking about today, a call to reengage
and revitalize united nations peace-keeping. this is something that a canadian prime minister started and right now there is a need to revitalize and refocus and support peace-keeping operations around the world. >> as sergeant's tragic death reminded us this is not just a trained mission. it has been tainted for targets for our air strikes, we know that. it involved fire on the front line, we know that. we have said that we should not be involved in the combat mission, we have said that there are several things that canada can and should be doing. there are more than 60 countries involved in this effort, only 12 of them are involved in combat mission.
that's why we think we should be stopping the flow of funds and flow of foreign fighters. >> let's be clear, canada is still involved in peace-keeping like areas -- obviously there's not a peace-keep mission. we're also involved in training troops, northern iraq we are working with forces with effective fighting force protecting from isis. the reason we are involved in the campaign there is, in fact, no ground resistance to isis. the only way to keep them back, to hold them back, keep them in their positions and keep them from simply being able to sit back and plan attacks against us is to keep military pressure on them. that's why president obama and
other allies are involved in an aerial campaign. >> is the support our national interest in a constructive and positive way, there's no question that it's absolutely in our national interest to help defeat isis to work with international partners on that. but how canada best help is by doing most of the kind of training, troops on the ground, that we develop tremendous capacities to do in afghanistan and in other places. that is something that canada has an advantage on and ability to do on top of the necessary humanitarian and refugee support that i know we'll talk about later. but that kind of engagement around the world where canada is focused on the things that we can do differently and often better than anyone else, is what we have to get back to. that's why this opportunity to reengage with 128,000 peace keepers around the world right now in 39 different countries,
is something quite frankly that the president of the u.s., asking to get involved, we not be engaged in the constructive way of saying, yes, let's renew peace-keeping and be part of it for more stable world for all. >> we are going to give him the last on the session. >> president putin's statements are cause for concern. this is time for cad -- canadian values, the last time the liberals that were in power, we went to number one in peace-keeping now to number 32. with mr. harper now is 68. canadians want us to do a lot of better and we will. >> i want to thank you for civil debate. we are now going to move onto our second item to discuss,
refugee crisis. canadians have been deeply moved by the crisis, devastating toll on women, children and families. mr. harper the question is to you, can you please explain how your latest change in policy reflects adequate response given the enormity of this crisis. >> you have 90 seconds to respond. thank you very much. ri -- i explained that we have a generous and balance with refugees and we are continuing with our military mission against, so to speak, the islamic state. >> we announced to accept 10,000 refugees on top of the additional numbers that are coming and we have resettled 15% of the refugees in the international community. we since announced our intention
and, in fact, implemented changes to move those additional numbers in much more quickly, and we've been doing so in a way to make sure we pick the most vulnerable groups and we maintain all standards of security screening. this is a responsible approach. it's certainly in line with other most other countries are now doing. in addition to that, we've also announced during the campaign establishment of additional funds for humanitarian assistance. canada is one of the largest providers in absolute dollars. 800million for billion dollars to the wider region. canadians have responded with the need, we encourage canadians to contribute to that fund. we will match con -- contributions. the vast number of people will remain in the region and will continue to need our help for the foreseeable future.
>> mr. trudoe, please get involved in the discussions. first of all, one must understand the crisis in the planet. 60 refugees and as a country we must having always welcome people like that and -- and having economy takes -- benefited from it, we must welcome them and we must know that in the next decade there will be more refugees because of climate changes and other issues and we must take a spot of leadership and take multilateralism and show how all of the planet can react to the issue of refugees. for example, we have a commitment at three levels, first of all, here in canada we must welcome these people, we
propose 25,000 syrians six months ago and we continue to say that that would be done at the beginning. for years already i've seen mr. harper saying in the house, yes, we are going to do something and we don't. second, we must work with the international community, with the country be lebanon to help with refugees and also to help them in europe adapt to suede of immigrant. we also must work with the countries of origin. we must stop the war. during the last decade canada received a quarter million of refugees. the biggest settlement program in the planet according to to the numbers there are 50 million
displaced people in the world, maybe even more in the greater region. of course, that is the reason for which we must have a balanced way of accepting the refugees, there are many that remain there and there's also a military action against the islamic state that are the turn to create-born refugees and murder of millions of people, literally. people are unanimous in the country. we must do more. canada always benefited from being open country and from people in crisis situation be it the hungarians who were fleeing behind the soviet situation,
fleeing to come to canada. we welcomed tens of thousands of people and mr. harper wants to talk about security. our security is always our concern even in situations that are extreme and even with less resource that is we have now in this idea that we must do more. people are saying that the prime minister, they're saying all over the country and this government does not want to do more, and really when we look like people that say that we can accept 60,000 before christmas we must understand that canada must be again the country who we were before. we already announced. it started already. >> they expect to act in a way that's generous and responsible. we haven't opened the flood
gates. some european just let them, what kind of numbers we can get and how quickly while maintaining security and not spending additional dollars. these are the numbers we arrived at. you know, ten thousand more. the united states said ten thousand more. it's a country ten times larger than us. i think we're responding in a way that's responsible and generous, and that's the response of the government of canada, not to catch headlines but in a way that we can actually fulfill. >> mr. harper, we stand here a few blocks of ireland park. 38,000 irish men, women and
children fleeing arrived on the shore of toronto. there were 20,000 citizens of toronto at that time and they accepted 38,000 refugees who proceeded to build and contribute to this country, to this city and to who we are today. canada has always done more. it's not about politics. it's about being the country that we have always been. >> you are failing as canadians but also the world is looking at us and what is going on with canada. you have already -- you were a country that were working people . people that want to built a better future for their communities and their children. now, mr. harper is saying
security would have to do the necessary, no, it is not that. mr. harper who is talking about dictators, you know what we do with terrorists and dictators, terrorists are escaping the look of violence, what would they do and you are removing their health benefits, mr. harper. [applause] >> this is what you are doing. >> we have admitted 23,000. an additional 10,000. we are not living in the different era. people are fleeing a terrorist zone and we obviously must have security screening. in terms of policy of health support for refugees, let's be very clear, we have health
support for refugees of immigrant when we stop those is when we have places of refugee claims that have been turned down, rejected. >> that's not true. you know that's not true. >> gentlemen -- gentlemen -- >> that's not a responsible thing to do. >> it's important for canadians to remember when we've done wrong in the past and why we have to learn from those experiences. it was pushed back from vancouver. a lot of people were killed when they made it back home. they weren't allowed to canada. most recently, minister, one of mr. harper's minister said they were terrorists.
refugees and say that the summary is about all the others won titles on the newspapers. help people fling a tragedy on a scale not seen since the second world war. anybody is going to take more than it did candidate to help them is about chasing headlines. i find that disrespectful but only for the people of this stage but i think everyone of us wants to secure security. it was disrespectful to canadians and to canadian values. [applause] >> thank you, mr. mulcair. >> our next topic. we all know it's taken on new urgency with a large-scale recruitment of foreign fighters. in response, the parliament passed the antiterrorism legislation that critics have attacked us on among civil liberties ever lack of democratic oversight. explain to us, mr. trudeau, the
champion of individual freedoms why to devote for the bill? >> that's what the liberal party has always stood for. that's what we're successful in the years following the 9/11 attacks. we brought forward responsible legislation that would have many amendments and many tweets before we got the balance right but we did get that balance right. canadians expect the government to do that anyway that doesn't cement fear or play up divisions. now, mr. mulcair has had three different position. his initial position was to change it, and a few weeks later it was to repeal parts of it, and now it's to scrap it entirely. the one thing he says is that we don't need to do anything more to protect our security than we have right now. he hasn't put any options
forward. mr. harper doesn't think we need to do anything more to protect our rights and freedom. whereas in a free society we know that we have to ensure that anytime we give greater powers to our police or national security services, we are matching that with an increase of our production. that's why the liberal party pushed for strong amendments during the committee process and that's what we're committed to bringing in parliament, sunset and review clauses that are going to meet what canadians as for which is defend our rights and protect our safety. >> mr. mulcair -- >> translator: please get involved with the conversation with mr. trudeau. >> the ndp took a strong principled stand against p. 51. we looked at it. we knew it was wrong.
the same way the ndp was the only party to stand up in 1971. trudeau put hundreds of canadians in jail without trial, without any accusations. the only party to stand up against that was tommy douglas is ndp. that's the courage of their convictions. when we started our fight against the 50 what the vast majority were in favor of it. mr. harper has done an excellent selling job. by the time it is finished canadians understood two things, more to do with the politics of fear and division, and every single group that came and testified, every expert, and for former prime ministers including three liberals all said it was wrong. the ndp stood up against pkt one. [applause] >> i'll get to that in a moment but throughout this campaign indirect references and in direct references both of these gentlemen have various points of attacked my father. let me say very clearly, i am
incredibly proud to be his son and i'm incredibly lucky to instill those values. [applause] >> and when you talk about a legacy that my father leaves behind, first and foremost is the charter of rights and freedom which is defined can't as a country that stands up for individual rights even against government want to take those away. multiculturalism that has made canada a country strong not in spite of its diversity but because of its diversity and bilingualism which is my father understood, mr. mulcair, means saying the same thing in french as you say in english. [applause] and one last thing on my father, if you will please. it's quite emotional right now freed be able to talk with you because it was 15 years ago tonight that he passed away on september 28, 2000 i know he would want us to be fighting the
battles of the past 31 us to score the focus on the future now record respond to canadians needs, and that's what we're doing tonight. [applause] >> we are talking about is canadian values, the values that guide us women make our choices. sorry through the mr. trudeau things were talking about his father in a negative way. i'm talking about historical facts. the only party that stood up in 1970 and defend canadians rights and freedoms was the ndp the guilty party that stood on a question of principle against the bill was the ndp. mr. trudeau went to university of british columbia and said he was against it, he was afraid of stephen harper making political -- >> that's not true. >> you have the courage of their conviction. [talking over each other] >> you said we're going to be up to speak individually. [laughter] i don't mind being able to
finish my sentence. sentence. >> go ahead. [applause] >> on mr. trudeau's are the complaint which he does other very lightly, they did a check of mr. trudeau's complaint that somehow he is gay so i said one thing in front of one thing in english. they said it was total malarkey. it's not trigger i say the same thing was i in québec city or in calgary. i'm very proud to know and understand go back and have strong support of their but i also know an individual represent canadian values right across this great country. >> mr. mulcair is very clear. we saw it again earlier this week, or last week in the french debate you happy to talk about your decision to make it so the separatist québec at this country on a single vote even though the supreme court of canada said no, unanimously. but you will talk about with peter in english but you wouldn't talk about it at the maclean's debate. effect is you carry two different discussions at the
same time and that is not responsible. the other thing, however, that mr. mulcair has done on p. 51 exactly what so many of us deplore the mr. harbinson which is to play the politics of fear. mr. harper we all know on p. 51 wants us to be afraid that there's a terrorist hiding behind a new leaf and walk around us. we all need to be afraid and that's why he's there to protect us. [laughter] now, fortunately the podium is a transparent. mr. mulcair is planning a summer politics of fear trying to say because of the 51, with which we been very clear we have reservations but the taliban in that bill to protect canadians secured immediately and we are committed to bring i it the changes necessary to get that balance right but mr. mulcair is also playing the politics of fear and division, fear for environmental groups, fear we're suddenly in a police state, fear we ripped up the charter of
rights and freedom. we know that that's not true. the liberal party has taken the responsible position of saying we need to do both, security and defend our rights to freedom together, and that is what my father and liberal governments have always understood. [applause] >> sharing information on peaceful protest, that's their quirks you voted for that. lang against basic rights and freedoms, you voted for that, mr. trudeau. i stood on the question of principle. i am not afraid of stephen harper. i voted against the bill 51. [applause] >> mr. mulcair, intimidate there was a concern that people had around lawful protest and there's a concern we had and we heard many members point out the fact this is something that needed to get changed. the liberal party put forward amendments, voted down to the conservative party put forward the same amendments and pastor.
every step of the way, every single proposal that was put forward to improve the 51 from the ndp voted against. the people playing politics here striking up here talking about police states and taking away our rights are the into the abyss. i am not apologetiapologeti c in the least about taking a strong stance that understands -- >> were down to our final moments of the second. second. what to do less work to to mr. mulcair spirit that is completely false. i've never ever use the term police state. with regard to our stance on a conference in québec is where the normal rules of democracy as i said to peter, -- [speaking french] triptych and that's exactly what i said at the debate lastly. i trusted them. asked respecting rules in a democracy, mr. trudeau does not respected them. >> is the government is fully
committed to protecting both our freedoms and our security both of which are under attack from i suspect the threat today is isis. if we look at -- [applause] if we look at the provisions of the bill mr. trudeau well defended give our sacred agencies powers that are similar across the western world. for example, the building of security agencies to share information on security threats, to intervene directly through a warrant if there's a need to come if there's a plot action unfolding, the ability to take down websites that attempt to recruit people to terrorist organizations. these are all important matters overseeing robust device independent organization headed by retired justice. is not the only things we have done. and many other steps we have taken on anti-radicalization and some other things had been in his recent including the fact this government is clear we will and have provoked the citizenship of people are
convicted of terrorist offenses who did not determine to be our citizens. there's no reason why we would not do that. [applause] >> first of all, mr. harper talks about oversight of our security agencies. he put arthur who died independent meaning prison fighting extradition to can put in charge of overseeing our security agencies. when our other five allies to is act part of against to oversee our work. candidate isn't one of those allies who does not do that. it is about to think, about ensuring that yes of those police powers are not overused and abused, that we are making sure that we are upholding the charter rights of every individual. president abbas also holding our nation's good agencies and police to account to make sure they are actually protecting us in every possible way.
we need to trust elected parliamentarians to do that job, doesn't it point officials and civil to the prime minister. that's what an honest and open and transparent government should do and that's what the liberal party is committed to bringing and. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: bill c-51 is a real threat to our rights and freedoms. once again, these are the false choices of the mr. harper, do you want the security of freedom? the same way when he says do you want good economy or deal with the environment. it's not a matter of choosing between one and the other. both can be dealt with and he's trying to justify bill c-51 while the ndp talks position of principles against this bill because it attacks very seriously our rights and
freedoms. it's been for a very long time in our anthem. we must protect at the same time our rights and our freedoms, and this is a pretense of being progressive matter, but we should have seen that this was putting in danger our rights and freedoms, bill c-51. mr. trudeau, you are afraid of mr. trudeau, that's what you said at the university of british columbia. you know very well that what i think about all this issue is that this is a choice anchored in the security. canadians award about their jobs, about infrastructure, about how to the middle class and that's what we should talk about in these elections. and we took a balanced position like the liberals always did to protect both our rights and freedoms at the same time.
>> despite 10 years to do something about it, he just couldn't revoke some citizenship today, these past days, convicted of terrorism. and he's right, the liberal party takes issue with that. because quite frankly, it worries me when the first response is not this person needs to be in jail, but it's this person should be given a two-tiered citizenship, that we recognize that someone can be judged differently by our system of laws and rights because their parents were born in a different country. that is not canadian. and particularly from his prime minister was made a habit of calling of first nations groups, environmental groups as terrorist, we should be very worried that any prime minister would have the ability to revoke citizenship for people. it's a slippery slope that belies what candidate is. [speaking french] >> mr. harper, please coming. we're going to add a minute to the clock.
>> we can remove them from the country under the cell after his release. that's the difference. are you saying we never be able to revoke citizenship from somebody? is better positioned? because we revoke the citizenship already of war criminals. why would we not revoke the citizenship of people convicted of terrorist offenses against this country? this was a bill put forward -- [applause] -- this was a couple for by a member of parliament who is himself an immigrant. this is not the standards we expect. all of us who here expect that we'd have a minimum bar that people would not, people who come here would not be guilty of trying to plan terrorist attacks against this country. the individual in question -- the canadian -- >> you devalue the citizenship of every canadian in this place and in this country when you break down and make it conditional for anyone. we have a rule of law in this
country and you can't take away -- [talking over each other] >> you can't do that. [talking over each other] he was detonating bombs that would have been -- >> the politics of fear once again. >> this country has every right to revoke the citizenship of an individual like that. >> we are out of time for that segment last night as lively as it was, we appreciate it. [speaking french] >> i know what you change gears and move to the first of our three rapid reaction sessions. i want to start with you, mr. mulcair. the ndp is a strong proponent of spending more on foreign aid. many canadians want to know why we should spend billions more when we have so many urgent problems here at home. make that case to the country. >> i think it is a fundamental canadian value to do more to
help the neediest in the world, to help on issues like international cases of poverty, help build democracy in the world, help defend women's rights. those are core canadian values and don't forget, we've dropped by about half the percentage of our gross national income that we are dedicating now to foreign aid. we are down to under zero-point to 5% which is lamentable compared to other countries. david cameron's conservative and has bought the country up to the 0.7% that will be the goal. we will set a timeline for that with an entity government to get to the important goal of 0.7% because canadians understand that it's only by investing that we can help democracy, help alleviate poverty but help build candidates stand in the world. we've lost about. >> i want to stop you there because this is rapid reaction session. let's have a three-way debate on this topic. who will start?
[speaking french] >> and, of course, one of things we have let on, we are very proud of is our child, maternal and newborn health initiative. we have been able to assemble an international coalition of countries, international organizations, private foundations to, frankly often with minimal investment to dramatically reduce child and maternal mortality in the developing world. this is something as canadians, we are a very wealthy country, it's something we can do. we know it's effective and we provide a doing a. i know with lots of meats over on but it is in our broader interest that we help people around the world when we can and let me know that aid will actually be used responsibly and effectively and that's what we always committed to. >> vista mulcaire, please join.
country after independence and third party organizations, ngos that we have and get into that kind of a debate. you need to concentrate on the things that unite people. saving the lives of mothers and their newborns around the world as a cause that has united people, on which we've made real progress, and we need to keep going in that direction. it's something we should be very proud of it. >> the last word to mr. trudeau. [speaking french] >> translator: all of the world canadians are involved. it is doctors without borders, engineers without borders. we must engage all over the world because it's to our benefit and that's what we're going to do. that's what we must do in order to increase the fate of the most vulnerable in the world. thank you.
spent our second rapid reaction topic. you've made the point of visiting the arctic every summer as a prime minister, advantage or leadership not one you icebreaker or deep water port has been built and is at a time when you know the russians have 40 icebreakers and as many as another 14 plan to. what would you do to reassert canada's interest in the north. >> in fact we are actually, the work has begun on a deep water port at nana civic. with greater and army arctic training center at resolute bay. we've increased our ability to purchase in the air force to reach the entire north. we want to make a with better coverage on the basis. and, of course, with expanded the canadian rangers who are a eyes and ears in the north. this helps local communities and they brutal force. these are not the only investments we are making.
we are making solid investments, making environmental investments, i hardly of research stations, the expansion and the national park, economic investments like the building of the highway system to the arctic coast, social investment in adult education and housing and investment in governance. we cite historic devolution agreement with the government of the northwest territories to bring governance closest to the people. we are going to continue to make investments across a range of areas and continue to respond to the threat into the risk that russia in particular approaches of course in the arctic, something we forgot about for a very long time. >> mr. harper. >> in january to pastor i went to the arctic with my son xavier, the way i've been able to do as a child, and one of the things in talking with communities and single people are struggling to the wind with inadequate food security, with the challenges around infrastructure.
the one thing you keep saying about you up there, mr. harper, is your big sled, no dogs. [laughter] the challenge we need to have is to understand that of sovereignty over the arctic, we have to support the communities, the people who live there, who have lived there for millennia. that is not what you were doing enough. we need to work with multilateral partners. obama just convened the arctic council in alaska last month in canada was almost practically absent from the. we need to take real multilateral leadership on the arctic and when you do so once again investing in science and research not defined ships but to actually detect what's going on with the fragile arctic ecosystems and make sure we are serving the needs of our country. [speaking french] [applause] >> translator: trying to get involved with the discussion, mr. mulcair. >> in the arctic strategy has to begin with the people of the
north. [speaking french] >> translator: i'm very proud to be able to say that tomorrow i'm going back to the island. it's a great opportunity for us to see everything in one mr. harper has failed. we have seen the results. >> those people going into garbage cans to find food in the north. his minister sat there in the house of commons reading her newspaper. i think what additional obama concern for the people of the north and understand that canada's arctic is the front line of the battle against climate change. as the permafrost melts were letting go of a lot of methane which as a greenhouse gas is 20 times more powerful than co2. it's a catastrophic climate driver and we're going to have to start dealing with this issue seriously. mr. harper doesn't agree. he doesn't think there's a problem. that's what he's made us feel the country in the world to
withdraw from the kyoto protocol. i know it's an urgent pressing issue that requires serious attention. >> i have given over to a very partial list of the range of new investments we made in the arctic. these are without precedent in canadian history across environmental, economic, social, sovereignty, governance of dimensions. that's why northerners have responded so positively and so supportive to our agenda. this attention was never paid to this part of the country before. it did not awaken to the attention of the other parties unhappy about that. it's about time the north defines our country. i'm particularly proud that we have a remarkable in you would woman who sits in the cabinet of candidate. that is a real step forward in this country had a real sign that those people that the inuit in order to arrive in our country spill we've got a minute left i'm going to get 30 seconds to mr. trudeau and less work to mr. mulcair. >> we are under but even in military procurement for our navy that we need to right now
which is why i also have made the decision of these legitimate on stage to cancel expensive f-35s to plunge that money in extra money so in extra money the institute called the point at a better price a bunch of extra tens of billions of dollars into our navy so they can once again protect a two-thirds of our coastline that ends up in the arctic and one-third of our land mass in the arctic. candidate needs to reengage and we can fund it properly and that's what mr. harper hasn't done. >> we have record investment in shipbuilding right now, $35 billion. we're going down at all of our shipyards and we do that, mr. trudeau, without promising to run deficits and without hiking peoples taxes. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: there is no time left. there is no time left. [speaking french] >> translator: in the canadian north as we were able to see it recently with my friends and