tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN October 2, 2015 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
[ speaking french ] [ speaking french ] >> we've already announced more, already are doing more. but this isn't just a game of trying to up the numbers. we're trying to do things responsibly. i've visited refugee camps in syria, in northern iraq. i've visited with families we have accepted from these regions. i have met with leaders from those communities, not just in canada, but in the region itself.
and i can certainly tell you, from my visits to the refugee camps in jordan and debriefings there, we can't pretend there are no security risks. it's important that we do screening. those countries in the world that responded to these headlines as these others would have by just opening the doors and doing no checking have rapidly regretted that, and are now trying to put in place the very kind of system that canada has been pursuing all along. it's a generous response, it's a responsible response. it is not based on the headlines. it is based on the right thing to do. [ applause ] [ speaking french ]
>> i want to bring mr. mulcair back in for our remaining time. >> translator: it is extremely difficult to hear a prime minister of a country who says that he's one of the first to help refugees, and say that the summary is that all the others want titles on the newspapers. >> trying to represent most needy of the earth, help people fleeing a tragedy on a scale not seen since the second world war, anybody fighting to get canada to take in more of them is somehow chasing headlines. i find that skildisrespectful. it's disrespectful to canadians
and to canadian values. >> translator: thank you, mr. mulcair. >> the next topic is the global terrorist threat. it's taken on more urgency with the large scale recruitment of foreign fighters. canada's parliament passed new antiterrorist legislation. it's been attacked as undermining civil liberties. >> translator: explain to us, mr. trudeau. >> why did you vote for bill c-351? >> canadians expect us to do two things: protect our security and defend our rights and freedoms. that's what the liberal party stood for. that's what we did successfully in the years following the 9/11 attacks. we brought forward much responsible legislation. we did get that balance right.
canadians expect their government to do that in a with a doesn't foment fears or play up divisions. mr. mulcair has had three different positions on c-51. his initial position was to change it. then a few weeks later it was to repeal parts of of it. now it's to scrap it entirely. he says we don't need to do anything more to protect our security than we have right now, because he has not put any options forward. mr. harper doesn't think we need to do anything more to protect our rights and freedom, where is in a free society we know that we have to ensure that any time we give greater powers to our police or investigative or national security services, we are matching that with an increase of our protections. that's why the liberal party pushed for strong amendments during the committee process on c-51. and that's why we're committed
to bringing in oversight by parliamentarians and sunset and review clauses that are going to meet what canadians ask for, which is defend our rights and protect our safety. >> translator: mr. mulcair, please get involved with the conversation with mr. trudeau. >> the ndp took a very strong, principled stand against c-51. we looked at it and we knew it was wrong. just like we thought it was wrong when mr. trudeau put hundreds of people in jail without any trial or accusation. that's the courage of your convictions. when we started our fight against c-51, the vast majority of canadians were in favor of it. mr. harper had done an excellent selling job. by the time it finished in committee, canadians understood it was more to do with the politics of division than with
security. and every single group who came and testified, every expert who came in there, and four former prime ministers all said it was wrong, the ndp stood up against c-51. [ applause ] >> throughout this campaign both of these gentlemen have at various points attacked my father. let me say very clearly, i am incredibly proud to be prime minister trudeau's son and to have been raised with those values. when we talk about the legacy my father left behind, first and foremost is the charter of rights and freedoms which defines canada as a country which stands up against individual rights, even against governments who want to take that away, multiculturalism that
makes canada strong not in spite of but because of its diversity, and bilingualism, which means saying the same thing in french, mr. mulcair, as you say in english. [ applause ] >> one last thing on my father, if you please. it's quite emotional for me right now to be able to talk about him, because it was 15 years ago tonight that he passed away, on september 28th, 2000. and i know that he wouldn't want be to be fighting the battles of the past. he would want us squarely focused on the future and how we're going to fight for canadas' needs. that's what we're doing tonight. >> what we're talking about is canadian values. the values that guide us when we make our choices. i'm sorry to hear that mr. trudeau things we're talking about his father in a negative way. i'm talking about historical fact, that the only party that
stood up for canadians' rights and freedoms was the ndp. the only party that stood on principle against bill c-51 was ndp. you have to have the courage of your convictions. >> mr. mulcair. once again -- >> sorry, you said we were going to be able to speak individually. >> go ahead. >> on mr. trudeau's other complaint, which he throws out there very lightly at every occasion, there was a check of mr. trudeau's complaint, where he says i've said one thing in french and one thing in english, they said it's total malarkey. i know an ndp government will
represent canadian values across the country. >> it's very clear, we saw it again last week, in the french debate you were happy to talk about your decision to make it so that separatists could break up this country on a single vote, even though the supreme court of canada said no unanimously. but you won't talk about it with peter manslaughtbridge in engli. the fact 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 c-51 is exactly what so many of us deplore that mr. harper has done, which is to play the politics of fear. now, mr. harper, we all know, on c-51, wants us to be afraid there's a terrorist hiding behind every leaf and rock behind us and we all have to be afraid and that's why he's there to protect us. [ applause ] >> fortunately the podiums are
transparent. mr. mulcair is playing a similar politics of fear, trying to say that because of c-51, company. we have been very clear that we have reservations, but there are elements in that bill that protect canadians and we're working to bring in protections to get that balance right, but mr. mulcair is playing the politics of fear and division, fear that we're suddenly in a police state, fear that we've suddenly ripped up the charter of rights and freedoms. and 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 and freedoms together. and that is what my father and liberal governments have always understood. [ applause ] >> sharing information on pea peaceful protests? that's fair? going against basic rights and freedoms, you voted for that,
mr. trudeau? i stood on a question of principle. i'm not afraid of stephen harper. i voted against c-51. >> mr. mulcair, in committee, there was a concern that people had around lawful protests. we heard many committee members point out that this was something that needed to get changed. the liberal party put forward amendments. they were voted down. the conservative party put forward the same amendments and passed it. every single proposal or amendment that was put forward to improve at committee c-51, the ndp voted against. talking about police states and taking away our rights are the ndp on this. i am not apologetic in the least about taking a strong stance. >> we're down to the final moments of the segment. i want to give the last word to mr. mulcair.
>> that is completely false. i've never used the term "police state." i have confidence in quebecers that the normal rules of democracy apply there. >> translator: that's exactly what i said at the debate last week. i trust quebecers as to respecting rules in a democracy. mr. trudeau does not respect them. >> this government is fully committed to protecting both our freedoms and our security, both of which are under attack from the group isis. the threat we face today is isis. and if we look at -- [ applause ] >> the provisions of the bill that mr. trudeau actually well-defended, give our security agencies powers that are similar across the western world, for example the ability of security agencies to share information on security threats, to intervene directly through a warrant if there is a need to, if there is
a plot actually unfolding, the ability to take down websites that attempt to recruit people to terrorist organizations in canada, these are all important matters, overseen by a retired judge. these are not the only things we've done. there's many other steps we've taken on anti-radicalization and some other things that have been in the news recently, including the fact that this government is clear, we will and have revoked the citizenship of people who are convicted of terrorist offenses who do not need to remain to be our citizens. there is no reason why we would not do that. [ applause ] >> first of all, mr. harper talks about oversight of our security agencies. he putt arthur porter in charge of overseeing our security agencies. what our other allies do is ask
elected parliamentarians to oversee those agencies. canada is the only one that does not do that. it is about ensuring that police powers aren't overused and abused, that we are upholding the charter rights of every individual. but it's also holding police to account to make sure they are absolutely protecting us in every possible way. we need to trust elected parc parliamentarians to do that job, not just appoint people answerable only to the prime minister. that's what the liberal party is committed to bringing in. >> translator: bill c-51 is a real threat to our rights and freedoms. once again, these are the false choices of mr. harper.
do you want security or freedom? the same way as when he says do you want good economy or dealing 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 took a position on 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 pretence of being a progressive matter. but we should have seen that this was putting in danger our rights and freedoms. bill c-51, mr. trudeau, you were 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 security. canadians are worried about their jobs, about infrastructure, about help 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 ten years to do something about it, he just revoked someone's citizenship in the past days, convicted of terrorism. and he's right that 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. particularly from this prime minister, who has made a habit of calling out first nations groups, environmental groups as terrorists. we should be very worried that any prime minister would have the ability to revoke citizenship for people. it's slippery slope. >> mr. harper, please come in. we'll add a minute to the clock. >> the individual in question is already in prison and we'll be able to remove him from the country after he is released. are you seriously saying, mr. trudeau, we should never be able to revoke citizenship for somebody? we can revoke the citizenship of war criminals. why would we not revoke the citizenship of people convicted of terrorist offenses against this country? this was a -- [ applause ] >> this was a bill put forward by a member of parliament who is
himself an immigrant. all of us here expect that we would have a minimum bar that people who come here would not be guilty of trying to plan terrorist attacks against this country. >> 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 individual rights. you can't do that. >> the individual in question is convicted of -- he would have detonated bombs. >> this is the politics of fear. we are not a country dominated by fear. we are a country of laws and rights. >> we're out of time for that segment.
lively as it was. we appreciate it. i now want to change gears and move to the first of our three rapid reaction sessions. 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 urgent problems here at home. make that case to the country. >> i think it is a fundamental canadian value to do more, 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're dedicating now to foreign aid. we're down to under 0.25%, which is lamentable compared to other countries. i mean, david cameron's conservative government has brought that country up to the
0.7% that will be the goal. we'll set a timeline for that with an ndp government, because canadians understand that it's only by investing that we can help democracy, help alleviate poverty, but importantly as well, we can help build canada's standing in the world. >> i want to stop you there because this is a rapid reaction session. gentlemen, let's have a three-way debate. >> translator: who will start? >> i'm going to start. [ speaking french ] [ speaking french ]
countries and private foundations, frankly with often minimal investment, to dramatically reduce child and maternal mortality in the developing world. this is something as canadians, we're a very wealthy country, we know we can do. it's effective, and we're very proud of doing it. we have needs of our own but it is in our broader interests to help people around the world when we can and when we know that aid will be used responsibly and effectively. that's what we're committed to. >> mr. mulcair? [ speaking french ] [ speaking french ]
>> translator: this government does very general health services. but we want to -- >> you can't go out in the world and unit te the range of countrs that we have, and the ngos that we have, and get into that kind of debate. you need to get to it on things that unite people. saving the lives of mothers and newborns around the world is something that we've made real progress and we need to keep going in that direction. >> the last word to mr. trudeau. [ speaking french ]
>> translator: all over the world, canadians are involved. there is doctors without borders, engineers without borders. we must get engaged all over the world, because it's to our benefit. and that's what we are going to do. that's what we must do in order to increase the fate of the most vulnerable in the world. thank you. >> our second rapid reaction topic, mr. harper, the question is to you. you've made the point of visiting the arctic every summer as prime minister. under your leadership, not one new deep water port has been built, at a time when you know the russians have 40 icebreakers and as many as 14 planned. what will you do to reassert canada's interests in the north? >> in fact the work has begun on the deep water port at
nanasivic. we have increased our ability through purchases in the air force to reach the entire north. we're investing to make sure we have better coverage. we've expanded the canadian rangers, who are our eyes and ears in the north, and they patrol for us. i should be clear, these are not the only investments we're making. obviously we're making sovereignty investments, the expansion of the nahani national park, economic investments like the building of the highway system to the arctic coast, social investments in adult education and housing, and investments in governance. we signed an historic agreement to bring governance closest to the people. we're going to continue to make investments across a range of areas. of course we'll continue to respond to the threat and to the
risk that russia in particul particular -- >> translator: thank you. mr. trudeau, it's your turn to talk about this matter. >> in january this past year i went up to the arctic with my son xavier, the way i had been able to do as a child. in talking with communities and seeing how people are struggling through the winter with inadequate food security, challenges around infrastructure, the one thing they keep saying about you up there, mr. harper, is you are big sled, no dogs. the challenge, to have sovereignty over the arctic, we have to support the communities, the people who live there, who have lived there for millenia. obama just convened the arctic
summit last month and canada was almost completely absent on that. we need to start once again investing in science and research, not to find ships, but to actually detect what's going on with the fragile arctic ecosystems and make sure we're serving the needs of our country. >> translator: thank you, mr. trudeau. kindly get involved in the discussion, mr. mulcair. >> arctic strategy has to begin with the people of the north. >> translator: i am very proud to be able to say that tomorrow i am going back to caluit, to baffin island. it's a great opportunity for us to see everything in what mr. harper has failed. we have seen the results. >> comments about people going into garbage cans to find food in the north. his minister sat there in the
house of commons reading the newspaper. we have to show more concern for people in the north. we should also understand that the north is the front line in the battle against climate change. we're letting go of methane, 20 times more powerful than co2. it's a catastrophic climate driver. we'll have to start dealing with this issue seriously. mr. harper, of course, doesn't agree. he doesn't think there's a problem. that's why he's made us the only country in the world to withdraw from the kyoto protocol. >> i've given a very partial list of the range of new investments in the arctic. these are frankly without precedent in canadian history, across social sovereignty, governance dimensions. that's why northerners have responded so positively. this kind of attention was never paid before. if it now awakens the attention
of the other parties, i'm happy about that. it's about time it got support from all parties. i'm particularly proud that we have a remarkable inuit woman who sits in canada. that's a sign that the inuit has arrived in our country. >> mr. harper talks about icebreakers. the fact is we are underfunding even the military procurement for our navy that we need to have right now. which is why i alone have made the decision, of these gentlemen on stage, to cancel the expensive f-35s, to plunge any extra money, so we can get better planes at a better price, and plunge the money into our navy so we can once again protect two thirds of our country that is in the arctic. canada needs to reengage and fund it properly. >> translator: thank you, mr.
trudeau. >> $35 billion weren't going down at all of our shipyards. we do that, mr. trudeau, without promising to run deficits and without hiking people's taxes. >> translator: there is no time left. >> in the canadian north, as we were able to see it recently with my friend, there is a particular crisis as to housing. >> translator: i saw houses with 18 people in two rooms. how can a child do his homework? this is a social and economic crisis that is destroying the next generations. this is a state obligation. it reflects our deep canadian values. and i will tackle that when i become the prime minister. it will be an opportunity to tackle the housing problem for
our first nations and inuit. >> you're all aware, i'm sure you've thought a lot about this, that the biggest foreign challenge policy of the moment surely is the aggressive and unpredictable behavior of russia on the world stage. mr. trudeau, if you become prime minister, how will you deal with vladimir putin? >> i think there's no question that we have to recognize that russia has become, as you say, a destabilizing force around the world. he's destabilizing eastern europe with his unacceptable incursions in ukraine. in blocking the achievement of cease-fires and stabilizing and to being barrel bombs in syria. and he's being a provocative agent in the arctic, which requires canada to stand firm with our multilateral partners to push back with strong sanctions and as a strong partner of nato to that.
mr. harper has made a big deal of talking loudly and strongly to mr. putin. but the reality is canada has such a diminished voice on the world stage that mr. harper hasn't noticed that vladimir putin didn't listen to him when he told him to get out of ukraine. unfortunately that is a reflection that we don't have the impact that we used to have to push back against bullies like vladimir putin. >> it's fascinate to go hear these other parties talk about their fears and their concerns about mr. putin. for years they accused this government of being alarmist, as we pointed out to the world the deterioration of democracy and human rights in russia under his rule, and his increasingly destabilizing behavior internationally. i have met with mr. putin many times. i made it very clear to him that this country will never tolerate under any circumstances his
occupation of the baltic territory. it was annexed by the soviet union in 1939. we held to this position with our allies since then. i've said that this country will continue to work with our allies to make sure we never any way recognize or accept russian occupation any square inch of ukrainian territory. [ applause ] >> the ndp stands four square with the people of ukraine against this russian invitation. and we will stay there for the long term. but it's interesting to hear mr. trudeau say what he's going to do with mr. putin. mr. trudeau, you can't even stand up to stephen harper on c-51. how are you going to stand up to putin? mr. harper talks a good game with regard to dealing with mr. putin. but the fact is there are two people, yakunin and sechen, who
are on the list of some of our closest allies, including the americans. mr. happier are has refused to put them on the list of sanct n sanctions for canada. you know why? because they have important business dealings here in canada. he's going to tell us he's got a longer list than anyone else. the rest of the people on that list don't matter much. but these two count. they should be on canada's sanctions list. they're not, because mr. harper talks a good game about dealing with putin, but two of his closest allies, two of his closest buddies, are not being sanctioned. mr. harper is protecting them, not sanctioning them. >> it's not just in russia but in crimea and ukraine. if anybody is listed by all of our allies, they're of course listed by canada. mr. mulcair claimed in the previous debate that these two individuals are listed by
everyone. they're not. we want to make sure the sanctions are effective, that they punish russians and not canadians. we continue to review that particular -- those particular cases. but no one should doubt, and i think the world has recognized that the ukrainians have recognized it, no country has responded more comprehensively to ukraine's needs, whether they be nonlethal military aid, training, financial assistance. i've been to ukraine, met with president boroshenko. no country has stood with ukraine more than this government has. >> and canada will continue to stand with ukraine. when i chatted with president boroshenko, we have seen tremendous impact locally. but at the same time, we are a
country that used to have a lot more influence. and when canada said something, we were listened to on the world stage. and that has been diminished over the past years because of our withdrawal from international consensus building, from working with multilateral partners as a positive, constructive actor in our national interests. and that's what we need to get back to so we can make a difference in holding our ground against putin and against bullies around the world. >> thank you, gentlemen, for three very good rapid reaction discussions. let's now return to our longer format exchanges. i want to begin by focusing on the topic of canada-u.s. relations. mr. harper, you were unable to convince barack obama to build the keystone pipeline. what does this failure tell you about how we should manage the canada/u.s. relationship going forward? >> barack obama and i have discussed this particular matter. he says there's nothing he's asking canada to do, he's going
to make the decision based on his own assessment of american interests. this government has worked with two radically different administrations in the united states. and we have worked productiviel in the both. we're working together with the united states against the so-called islamic state. we're working closely with the united states in our response to the crisis in ukraine and in reassurance to our eastern european allies and nato. we've worked together on the ebola crisis. we've had a clean energy and climate change dialogue. we've worked with the united states on joint regulations in that particular area. we have a project of unprecedented scope called beyond the border in which we are doing more to better integrate our security and try to thin border processes between canada and the united states, vitally important to our trade. we're working together, sometimes not always agreeing, on international trade negotiations. but look, canada has a good
relationship with the united states. we work productively overall. at the same time, the responsibility of the prime minister of canada is to stand up for canadian interests. where it's necessary to take a position different from the united states, we do that. >> mr. mulcair? >> very difficult to see how canada's superior interests were being served when prime minister harper said to president obama that it was a complete no-brainer that the americans had to approve keystone xl. i know that keystone xl represents canadian jobs because that's what mr. harper said. i want to create those jobs in canada. i think mr. harper takes a wrong approach when he says things like that. he informed americans that the keystone xl, this is a direct quote, i won't take no for an answer. guess what, the answer was no and you weren't able to do anything about it. now every progressive in the
united states is against keystone xl. mr. trudeau and mr. harper are in favor of keystone xl, just as they're in favor of c-51. it's time to start dealing with these issuing seriously. both mr. harper and mr. trudeau have failed on keystone. >> i look at the facts of the keystone xl pipeline. i'm simply citing the report done by the u.s. state department itself, which actually did an independent analysis of this. it creates jobs on both sides of the border, of course, as exports always do. i understand the protectionists in the ndp don't recognize that, but it's a fact. it displaces oil from foreign countries that are security risks to north america. it is by far the invest environmental solution in terms of moving product to market. the also point out, the reason i say this will be adopted eventually is through the efforts of our embassy and this
government, we have created overwhelming public support in the united states for this position on both sides of the aisle in congress and clear majorities in public opinion. and it is my view that when something, the logic of something is overwhelming on an environmental, economic, and energy security sense, that its adoption is inevitable. we will continue to make the cases and make the case aggressively. look, as i say, we far more often than not agree with our american friends. but when we dona not, we have t be vocal in pushing for canada's best interests. >> that's a wonderful idea. but when you actually need approval from your colleague for something you're pushing for, the last thing you should be saying is that it's a complete no-brainer or you won't take no for an answer or to tell the american administration of president obama that if you don't get it in this
administration, you'll get it with the next administration. i think you're pouring vinegar by the gallon on the americans and it's not a surprise they said no to you. you're right, though, there are times when our approach will be different from that of the americans. our job is to stand up for canada. on issues like trade, like climate, like security overall, we're going to be in agreement with them. we do have to stand up for canadian values. but what's the canadian value in exporting 40,000 canadian jobs to the u.s.? it doesn't make any sense. >> mr. mulcair, this is fundamental. it is amazing that the ndp actually believes that because we export our products and that helps create jobs elsewhere, that's somehow bad for canada. the reason trade is so important is it creates economic opportunities on both sides of the border. i personally have people, friends who work in this industry, ordinary families who depend on the revenue from this industry. the industry and labor organizations in both the united states and canada are supportive
of this. labor unions in alberta say the ndp's position on this is wrong. we cannot take, in the modern, global economy of the 21st century, an ideological opposition to trade, being able to sell our energy products, our our products around the world is a good thing for canada. >> this is a very old hat approach from the conservatives. this is the same approach that's failed in the past, where we rip and ship our natural resources in as raw a state as possible and send them to another country. the way to build for the future, sustainable development of our resources includes basic principles like polluter pay, which mr. harper has never applied, which includes putting the cost to the environment, the climate, the cheap greenhouse gases, into your evaluation. we don't have a complete, thorough environmental assessment process left in canada. and by the way, mr. harper has
failed, not only in the united states with keystone, but on his watch there's not a single kilometer in ten years of pipeline that's been built in canada. and there's a reason for it. you can force the matter and gut environmental legislation like you did, fisheries. but unless the public is on your side, it's not going to get built. mr. harper has only himself to blame. we have to start adding value to our resources here in canada. >> mr. mulcair, we've gotten off topic. i would like to bring in mr. trudeau on the canada/u.s. relationship. that's what i want to focus on. >> our relationship with the u.s. is the most important foreign relationship that canada has. how the prime minister can work with the president is at the top of the list of what a prime minister needs to get right. they're our most valuable and trusted ally. they're our nearest neighbor and our most important trading partner. and how we engage to ensure that
there are jobs for canadians and economic growth is deeply wrapped up in how we're getting the along. unfortunately, mr. harper has narrowed the entire relationship with the united states to a single point around the keystone xl pipeline. he went to new york and criticized and harangued the president. that is not the kind of relationship that we need, because not only does it not get the outcome that was desired of getting an approval for the keystone xl pipeline, it also interface with our capacity to deal with other issues, because it's quite frankly all mr. harper and his ministers wanted to talk to the u.s. about, whether it's buy american, whether it's the auto sector and the tpp negotiations going on, whether it's just jobs and growth for canadians. the fact is that canadians are sitting around worried about their jobs because we have a prime minister that doesn't like barack obama. we need to do much better than
that. and that personal relationship that mr. harper has had a difficulty creating, not just with the u.s. president who doesn't share his ideology, but with premiers across the country and municipalities and a wide range of people, is hindering these relationships that mean jobs and growth. >> mr.ma trudeau, let's bring mr. harper to reply. >> we have a great relationship with the u.s. administration. i have a great relationship with president obama. by the way, the americans have never said otherwise and neither have we. this is just an invention. what we've actually been able to do is stand up for our interests on things like keystone while pursuing a broad range of initiatives with our american partners. i ask you to look at the alternative. imagine, our first day of office, that we would have a prime minister who would say to the united states, we are pulling out of the joint military mission against the islamic state, and why? because you, mr. obama, are
continuing the policies of george w. bush. seriously, if you want to poison the relationship, that would be the way to do it. >> i want to ask mr. mulcair to respond to that, because it goes right to the heart of his policies regarding the islamic state and the international coalition. so please. >> and our relations with the united states. >> exactly. >> it's interesting to hear the prime minister cite our allies only when it suits his purpose. it's not based on a question of values. with the islamic state, he says, we have to do the same as the americans, the british, the french, because they're involved in the combat mission. when it comes to the deal that france, the united states, great britain, helped ensure that iran's nuclear ambitions were peeled back, mr. harper attacks that as being wrong headed. it's not a question that some of our allies agree and some don't. we just said the same thing, mr. harper, that when it's not in
canada's interests, we'll stand up with canada's needs. i know that canada can get back to being a voice for reason. i want to put canada on track. i want us to be able to fight the flow of arms, fight the flow of money, fight the flow of foreign fighters. but i also know that an independent canadian foreign policy means that fundamental canadian values, like fighting harder for peace than for war, is what i will bring to my tenure as prime minister of canada. >> you have a minute left. i want to give you the last word on this topic because you came in first. mr. harper, please. >> we have congratulated our allies on working to get a deal with the iranian regime. the proof of that will obviously be in the implementation of that deal. we will believe iran's words and not its actions. i think our allies will take a very similar position. but look, you philly admit that we don't always take the position of our allies. sometimes we take our positions based on what we believe are principles. let me give you a clear example. this government has been perhaps
the most unequivical in the world on the fact that when it comes to the middle east, we are not going to single out israel. it is the one western ally, threats directed front line of the threats directed against us, we won't single out the jewish state for attack and criticism. we recognize unequivocally the right of israel to be a jewish state and to defend itself. [ applause ] >> last word to mr. trudeau. >> the issue of israel where we most disagree is he has made israel a domestic political football when all three of us support israel and any canadian government will. but on the question of -- [ applause ] -- of the u.s. relationship. what we need to make sure is that we continue to engage as a robust member of the coalition fighting to defeat isis. there are many countries that don't have a direct combat role and canada has proven time and time again that we can contribute. and for our closest friend and
allies in the u.s. to relaunch u.n. peacekeeping today and not have canada stepping up to say yes this is a canadian thing that we can do well and we will support is yet another missed opportunity to have that positive relationship that ultimately means more jobs and more growth for canadians. >> thank you, gentlemen. we'll move on to our next topic. in a matter of weeks we know world leaders will gather in paris to negotiate a new global climate change agreement. mr. trudeau, liberal and conservative governments alike have failed to meet their international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. why should canadians believe that your government will be any different? >> translator: we recognize that the challenge that people are expecting us to face as a government is to understand that the environment and the economy go together.
we can't separate them anymore. in fact, when we enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this harms our relationships with the united states, our relationships all over the world. so what the liberal party is saying, what i say now is let's put aside this political game to give optimistic targets without having a plan to implement them. what we are choosing to do is to invest very much to reduce emissions. we're talking $20 billion over ten years of the investment on public transportations. we're talking $20 billion on -- over ten years for sustainable infrastructure to reduce our impact on greenhouse gas emissions and we are going to invest billions of dollars to develop green and clean energy and we're going to do that with
a t p the provinces because the reality is within the ten years of mr. harper the provinces were alone and four provinces did carbon pricing and we must have a federal government to support them and to present a united front in a few months in paris to show that canada is going back to the good way. >> translator: thank you mr. trudeau. i can say for the first time in history that canada has had economic growth, reducing at the same time greenhouse gas emissions. we've had economic growth but we've also had a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. as pertains to the conference coming up in paris, when we came to office a decade ago we took a position that was considered very radical, opposed by the other parties and many in the international community. we said that an effective international protocol had to include targets for all major
emitters. the chinese and americans who were not a part of the previous protocol are now committed to moving forward with that and i am very optimistic. we've established targets very similar to our major partners, we're working with the united states and others in the united states on regulatory systems on greenhouse gas emissions and i am very optimistic we will reach a historic accord in paris this year. >> translator: you know, he says that. he talks like that all the time as if canada was a leader in matters of environment. [ laughter ] i think he's even starting to believe himself. the reality is that everybody knows that mr. harper has not understood the very basic element whereby the environment and the economy go together if we are going to create a future jobs, economic prosperity that will be sustainable for our
children and grandchildren we must do our home work. we have to protect our soil, our waters and unfortunately mr. harper given that he did nothing about the environment in ten years is harming our economy. we can't export our resources in the market. we are being treated as a people who harm because we are destroying negotiations in climate change. the reality is that everybody knows we are nowhere as to the environment. canadians are frustrated, the whole world is frustrated. concerning canada, it's time to have a prime minister that will stand up and understand that the environment and economy go together. [ applause ] >> translator: the first thing we have for the first time is a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. you must understand that the record mr. trudeau is talking about is from the previous government that was the first one to increase greenhouse gas emissions. >> greenhouse gas emissions have gone down under our government. under the previous government, they established the toughest standards in the world and missed them by the most of any single country. they were 30% over their targets and when we got to office they didn't have a single plan to achieve anything. >> that's not true. you know that's not forward. >> we have moved forward on regulatory matters and the transportation sector and electricity sector. we'll continue to move forward. we have a real plan, we're taking actions and we're doing that without opposing carbon taxes on the canadian population. [ applause ] >> translator: what you don't recognize is that they have already 86 of our economy they
have they have announced a price on carbon. despite your inactivity in reducing the greenhouse effects and you have put targets that would not be met, that's why we'll put money in front instead of anything else. you have four different provinces take the leadership which columbia has a carbon tax well done. your province has done the same thing ontario and quebec will have a reduced carbon. we have real leadership from the provinces that for the federal government to support them and we have work to do together. but you, you prefer to sit down and not do anything and reality is that we are losing our
international representation. in 2008 when barack obama came to ottawa the first time he talked exactly about an integrated continental approach. you have done nothing since that time and the united states are going alone because canada is not part of the solution, would not engage the united states, mexico, to have approach that is integrated on the energy, on environment, on the growth, this is what the leadership that you didn't have within the last ten years. we can not -- >> translator: we can not take lessons from the liberal party of canada that has the worst targets. >> we have embarked on a system, what we are doing in our government is we are not -- we are making sure we know exactly where we'll reduce emissions in a way that preserves jobs and
doesn't impose costs on consumers. we're proceeding with a sector-by-sector regulatory approach and the transportation and other sectors, methane and oil and gas, for example, we're proceeding in collaboration with the united states. in the electricity sector, we've proceeded in collaboration not with the united states but our provinces on a position that is frankly going farther and faster than the united states. we will be the first country in the world to effectively shut down traditional coal-fired electricity. the biggest single source of emissions on the planet are being eliminated in canada. we're going to have the cleanest energy sector and we're doing that without imposing taxes on canadians. >> mr. harper, you do see the irony of standing here in toronto and trying to tell people in ontario that you somehow supported and aided the closing down of the coal-fire plants near ontario. [ applause ] you and your government fought tooth and nail against the ontario government as it was demonstrating that it could
reduce its emissions by the most significant degree of any jurisdiction in the country by making a simple policy decision that you were not no part of and even blocking and ridiculing from your gang in ottawa and then now taking credit for it. >> that's just factually untrue. [ applause ] >> mr. harper, these people know better than what you're trying to say. >> we have put in place at the national level a binding system of regulation in collaboration not just with the province of ontario but nova scotia, alberta, saskatchewan, all of the provinces that use coal-fired electricity. it's an example of collaboration. guess what? talk about the united states. emissions from their coal-fired electricity sector are bigger than emissions from the entire canadian economy. we're leading the world on this sector. >> translator: thank you, mr. harper. please, mr. mull care, please get involved in the conversation. >> translator: in fact, you know
that mr. harper is totally right when he says that the liberals used their kyoto signature as a pr deal. and he's right when he said that the liberal government had the worst record. except for kazakhstan. that doesn't mean that we have to continue not to do anything. >> those figures are published. every year i was the minister of the environment in quebec, i was able to reduce emissions. we had a clear plan. we have a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in canada. we'll base ourselves largely on the successful cap-and-trade model we use in canada and the u.s. to reduce so-2 emissions causing acid rain. it works. but if provinces have been doing something else that also works, we won't became posing the detail of the means to get there. what we'll be talking about is the combined obligation of result. no more excuses possible. no more fake stuff from the
liberals. >> $40 billion in infrastructure isn't fake, mr. mulcair. >> the mdp will get it done, that track record. these will be hard cap, real limits and they will be enforced. [ applause ] >> mr. mulcair is making the kinds of announcements that aren't followed up by any real plan to achieve this. because mr. mulcair has taken the decision that what he has to do at all costs is balance mr. harper's budget. he can not make the kind of investments the liberal party is choosing to make in the kinds of things that canada needs right now because, yes, we have chosen to run three modest deficits to balance the budget by 2019 because the time to invest is now, the time to take action on climate change is now. cheese a these are the choices we've made that you cannot make. and even as you announced with tremendous strength and pomp
your -- >> only pomp to you. [ laughter ] >> we have your friend and ally, inpd premier of alberta who said that, you know what? she's not so crazy about your approach on climate change reductions. but you can't even get an ndp premier to endorse your environmental plan you know you're in real trouble mr. mulcair. >> alberta is with one mind with us on the obligation of result. but this is about us is staunable development and when you say your only way of governing is to dump a massive economic debt on the backs of future generations, you're right, we disagree with you. mr. harper has left a huge ecological debt on the backs of future generations and the last time the liberals were in power with their 24% cut to social and health transfers, that left a social debt. the ndp has the best track record of any party in canada for balanced bugets. [ laughter ] when we took -- oh, you're
right, i forgot there was one exception but it turned out bob ray was a liberal. [ laughter and applause ] tommy douglas took over saskatchewan that the liberals left in bankruptcy, ran 17 consecutive balanced budgets in a row and brought there free universal public medical care. we bring in $15 a day quality child care not on the backs of future generations. it will be on the basis of a solid foundation of balanced budgets. >> this is a foreign policy debate. we had abeconomics debate the week before last so let's recenter discussion in our remaining moments. mr. harper, back to you -- >> very briefly. >> on climate change. >> these parties will never lay out precisely where they intend to reduce emissions. the advantage of proceeding sector by sector is you know what you'll do and you're able to make sure you minimize the cost on jobs in the canadian economy. we're investing a billion
dollars a year on green energy and energy efficiency. the only real policies ever proposed by either of these parties are effectively carbon taxes where we would hit consumers and carbon taxes are not about reducing emissions, they're about raising revenue for the government. mr. trudeau is right. mr. mulcair's plan has already been rejected by an ndp government. >> not true. >> we'll wrap up that topic and move on to our final long form discussion. mr. mulcair, your party is opposed on making concession in aspects of auto manufacturing in the context of the current transpacific partnership negotiations. does this mean under an ndp led government canada would be locked out of the world's fastest-growing markets? >> translator: thank you very much. well, this week i had the opportunity to talk with the president of farmers we must
commit ourself s ves to defend system which is a very important system that makes us very bright. we have no excuses to explain our system of supply in quebec and ontario. people are very worried because they know that three weeks prior to the election everything is allowed. >> mr. harper went public and said if you're in the auto sector you should be worried about what he's negotiating in the transpacific partnership. on mr. harper's watch we've lost 400,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs. there are 80,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs in the auto sector. what's on the table? when president obama wanted to discuss this this week, this is how good the relationship is, he phoned the president of mexico.
we were frozen out. i'm quite concerned about what's being left on the table by the conservatives and our dairy farmers have everybody right to be concerned. i think supply management is on the table and mr. harper doesn't keep his word on these things. ask anybody in newfoundland, labrador, when he got their approval on the european trade deal it was on a promise to give them money to compensate what they were giving up in terms of processing of fish and he broke his promise. >> translator: mr. trudeau, what is your opinion about the matter? >> translator: well, it's certain that we could have signed many agreements internationally without endangering our farming system but the reality is that the gentleman is showing a total lack of transparency. he doesn't want to talk about what he's doing and like mr. mulcair is underlining, he's not fulfilling his promises in many issues as to promises concerning
international trade. we absolutely must have free trade agreements. we know it's good for jobs and we need those investments. that's a reality and we can not we tend either that the world is a free trade world as to agriculture. we have a system that works, we signed very important agreements without putting ourselves in danger but we need to attract foreign investment. we need to create jobs here in canada. you know that the sectors -- the manufacturing sectors and exporting sectors pay higher salaries to canadians from the middle-class and international trade is essential for canada. mr. harper does like to talk about his support and the agreements he signed but our exports had the worst growth rate under his government that
we have had since the second world war. he hasn't performed in that sense and i want to say that when we see the record of liberals in that matter, remember that it was the promised in the red book to finish the gst. do you remember jean chretien's book? he had torn the free trade agreement of north america and of course he didn't do anything about it. that's why we must be very careful before signing because once that is signed it's very difficult to touch. there are aspects as to the state, as to protecting health. chapter 11 is a true challenge and mr. trudeau said that he agreed with europe with this nafta matter. it went to the house of commons.
pl mr. harper has an agreement with europe and there are aspects like investments, for example, that concern us and concern other countries in europe so even if he announced 12 times that he's going to make an agreement, there isn't one yet. we can't pretend that we are growing is while we are slowing down. i will never accept as to crucial environment or health or other matters to be non-defined, to have international experts decide what i have the right to decide for the public. that's a basic canadian value, to keep the authority of the state, to take one's own decisions in the interest of the public. >> translator: you know, mr. mulcair is trying to change the ndp to improve his image. the reality is that there are enormous difficulties still to
understand that we need free trade agreements to create a better future for our jobs and our economy. the ndp does not support any free trade agreement that might have been signed in the last few years. oh, no, there is one, the one with jordan. that's the only one he accepted. the reality is that this is a party that never understood what-twhato what extent it is important to attract investments to canada. to have markets for exports to be involved, to be engaged with growing economies in asia. we must be involved and, yes, the liberal party believes very seriously in international agreements. we believe it's essential for economic growth to give jobs to canadians and that is why we agreed with the canada/europe agreement but mr. harper has not performed yet. we are not yet anywhere with
china and australia. we're just at the beginning with india in spite of the rapprochement that mr. harper tried to do recently with the united states. we are not yet with international free trade. but mr. mull care was to enter into an exchange with the united states that h this is bulk water exports. >> he proposed we exported bulk water. you compared it to forestry. mr. mulcair -- >> that's false, justin. >> you were willing to sell our water to the united states. >> please jump in, mr. mulcair. an accusation has been made. we'd like you to respond. >> first of all, with regard to trade deal, that was trade deal with korea that was backed by the ndp so mr. trudeau the inventing facts once again. when i was a minister we had
lots of debates but the important thing to look at is what we decided. bulk water exports would have been a terrible idea, especially under the north american free trade agreement and proportio l proportionally clause so we shut the door and locked it tight. >> we have a video of you -- >> mr. trudeau doesn't understand debates because he's used to having people write his lines for him. [ audience reacts ] but with regard to korea, it's a representation -- >> we don't need that from mr. harper, we don't need that from you, mr. mulcair. >> we are looking for trade agreements with countries that share our values. whether it's the protection of the environment or the protection of workers' right, this is an even playing field. this can be about reciprocity. but what we won't do is what mr. harper's done is sign deals with countries like honduras who after a coup mr. harper ran the to make a deal with honduras. that's a country that doesn't respect workers' rights or human rights and we shouldn't put them on an even playing field with us because we're communicating we find that's okay.
same thing with our trade deal with klcolombia. there are times when you have to stand up and say canadians expect their government to reflect their values when they're putting their name on a trade agreement and mr. harper has consistently failed to show respect for those fundamental canadian values. >> mr. mulcair, i'll go to mr. harper. >> in the 20th century, the global economy, the retention of good-paying jobs will depend on having privileged trade access to the major economies of the world we've been able to achieve dealing in this continent with europe and now with the republic of korea, we're working in the asia-pacific region. every time we have done so in making sure we also advance the interest of our automobile sector, protect the interest of supply management, add vans the interest of canadian agriculture. there's always a reason to walk away from the table. there's always a reason to be against agreements. these parties opposed the original canada/u.s. agreement, opposed nafta, some of them oppose europe but we haven5u be
able to advance the interests of the canadian economy. we will only sign a deal if it's at the interest of the canadian economy but we'll advance and defend canadian interest. >> mr. harper talks about how many deals he's signed over the past years, what a great job he's done reaching out around the world but canada has the worst rate of export growth -- sorry, the prime minister, this prime minister, has the worst rate of export growth of any prime minister since world war ii. so if this is your best effort, mr. harper, we have to worry about what will happen if you get reelected because the fact of the matter is canada needs to engage positively on the world stage and our diplomacy, our cultural exchanges, our engagement in humanitarian efforts, our climate change responsibilities all feed into how we are able to engage in the kinds of trade deals that will bring good jobs to canadians. that will create a brighter future for people because we know export intensive industries
are 50% higher wages than non-exporting industries. >> let me go to mr. harper and then to mr. mulcair. >> we've increased our experts 50%. >> always someone else's fault. >> we're living in an era that's been very difficult where canada's performance is the best among the g-7. we need to continue that by taking forward-looking actions. that includes the steps we've taken to conclude trade deals in this continent and europe and also work to get trade deals in the area pacific region and you don't get those deals by coming up with a million reasons why you're against them before you get to the table and why you should walk away once you're there. we're there. we've had a successful record of making sure we defend the broad interests of the canadian economy. open up our markets, that's what we'll continue to do. >> mr. harper --
>> translator: they have asked me to ask you a question, it's the president of the union of agriculture. if you will defend wholly a system of management -- supply management and all the negotiations we have always defended the supply management and the negotiation we defend the agriculturings when they were outside of the system and we defend the interest of all the sectors and the engage system to conclude an agreement that is to the interest of the all communities of canadians. >> this is about how we build a stronger and brighter future for us all. the liberal party has put forward propositions on deficits to invest in our communities and our infrastructure. but we also understand that trade and creating good jobs is at the heart of what every canadian prime minister needs to
do. we are too big a country with too few people to be able to do it all on our own. we need trade with the u.s., with countries around the world to actually grow our economy to create good jobs for canadians and the fact that mr. harper hasn't been able to get it done on the big file and mr. mulcair continues to obstruct and deny the importance of trade means that the choice is clear in this election to pick the liberal party of canada. >> in fact, mr. trudeau, 99% of the free trade access of this country has been created by conservative governments. what we always get from the liberal party is platitudes on trade but you don't the vision and determination to sit at the table and make the tough decisions to get the deal. that's what we're doing. [ applause ] >> very brief final by mr. mulcair. >> thank you. the question to ask is who do you want representing canada at the climate change conference in paris in december?
who do you want sitting across from angela merkel as we try to get a deal that suits all of our purposes? who represents canadian values on all of the issues we're discussing tonight? for 150 years we've been told we have no choice but to alternate between the sponsorship scandal in the liberals and the senate scandal and the conservatives. [ laughter ] in this time around there's a real choice of an ndp government, a progressive forward looking choice for canada and canadians' values. >> translator: thank you, mr. mulcair. ladies and gentlemen, we have arrived to the end of our debate. [ applause ]
all of us here hope this debate has helped inform the vote that you, the viewing audience, each here in this auditorium will cast in three weeks's time. let's be sure all of us regardless of our views, our party, to head to the polls to vote. for those of you watching online right now -- [ applause ] -- our post-debate panel begins co-hosted by facebook canada and the globe and mail. >> translator: thank you for having followed us. >> thank you for watching the debates on canada's foreign policy. good evening. [ applause ] news today that secretary of education arne duncan plans to step down at the end of the year. duncan one of only two members
of the president's cabinet still in office from the start of the first term. he has served as education secretary for over six years. president obama is expected to address duncan's resignation from the white house today at 3:30 p.m. eastern time. we'll have that for you live on our companion network, c-span 2. sunday on q&a, "national law journal" supreme court correspondent and author of the companion book to c-span's upcoming series "landmark case," tony mauro on the supreme court's new term. >> one of the judges who didn't get his office, his position because of this, sued and the supreme court dealt with it. it was marbury v. madison. marbury was one of those judges and the court said basically that he probably deserves some
remedy but the remedy that congress has provided by for this goes beyond the power of congress, the authority of congress. and that -- so the supreme court was going to strike down that law and the supreme court -- and this is something the court had never done before, declaring an act of congress unconstitutional. ? that's sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q "q&a." on monday c-span debuts its new series "landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions." on the series premier, we look at the real story behind the famo famous marbury v. madison case devilling into the political battles between john adams, thomas jefferson and the chief justice john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in his famous
decision he wrote in marbury v. madison. >> marbury v. madison is probably the most famous case ever decided. >> joining the discussion, yale law school pref akeil reed and cliff sloan. landmark cases, exploring 12 supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in these cases. landmark cases premiers live this monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span 3 and c-span radio. and for background on heech case while you watch, order your copy of "landmark cases" companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping at cspan.org/landmarkcases. the american bar association hosted its annual homeland security conference with dozens of legal and national security analysts. this panel discusses the role of the lawyer when it comes to emergency preparedness.
they share their experiences handling the 9/11 attacks and the threat of ebola in the u.s. it's about an hour long. the next topic is the very serious one which is going to be reflected upon by our panel. moderating that panel is a perfect person to be part of this segment, joshua filler. i know josh from my service at the department of homeland security. he's founder and president of filler security strategies in washington, d.c., it's a homeland security consulting firm specializing in risk and capability assessments, exercises and evaluations. he served as the first director of the office of state and local coordination for the u.s. department of homeland security. josh co-authored the homeland security presidential directive eight on national preparedness that we followed early in the history of homeland security. he served on numerous boards to include the homeland security
policy institute at george washington university. please welcome josh filler. josh, thank you. [ applause ] thank you, joe. good afternoon,everyone. again, i'm josh filler, i'll be serving as the moderator on today's panel. when we think about emergency preparedness and response we generally tend to think of firefighters and police officers and sheriffs' deputies and the like. and while that makes a lot of sense, it's also true that lawyers for the agencies that those respondsers work for also play a very, very important role and we're privileged today to have an outstanding panel of lawyers from various different agencies at the federal and local level, some now in private practice who have served in those important roles or do so today and to give us some insights about the role of the lawyer in emergency preparedness
and response. with that i would like to introduce the panel by having them introduce themselves to you and then we'll get right into it. good afternoon, i'm adrian sivie,r, the chief council of the federal emergency management agency. i've been with fema since 2000, so about 15 years. i've had a variety of positions at the agency starting what we call a field attorney. so i deployed to the joint field offices that fema sets up when the president declares a major disaster or emergency. i've held a variety of positions at fema including the deputy chief counsel position for a number of years and i have been chief counsel for a year now. >> i'm dan connolly, i started my career as a prosecutor in new york city and served as counsel in major roogiuliani's administration in new york in eight years culminating in
serving as his liaison to the federal government in the aftermath of the attacks in september of 2001. and since then i have been in private practice both on the consulting side initially helping on the corporate side helping companies prepare for crisis and then more recently just good old-fashioned practicing of law. >> good afternoon, my name is george grasso. i started in government as a new york city police officer at 22 years old back in 1979 and went to law school on the job and worked my way up through various uniform ranks, ultimately becoming the deputy commissioner for legal matters of the nypd in 1997, which is essentially the chief legal counsel of the nypd. i held that job for five years until 2002 during which,
unfortunately, new york city had to endure the 9/11 attacks. among other things i'll discuss in more detail but on that day i was assigned by the police commission of the city of new york to be his personal liaison and representative with the fbi at the fbi command center where dan and i had already been working closely on a variety of topics. we then put a team together and worked closely for several months after that. in 2002, ray kelly made me his first deputy police commissioner, which is the number two in the nypd, a job i had for eight years. and from there in 2010 mayor bloomberg made me a judge in the criminal court of the city of new york and in 2012 i was appointed by the administrative judge of the criminal court to be the supervising judge for the
city of new york, a position i now hold. >> good afternoon, my career is not as colorful as my colleagues. my name is marie claire brown. i am with the district of columbia department of health. i was in private practice 123r years after which i decided to move over to the government. i've been a district of columbia attorney for the past 18 and a half years so i am currently the senior assistant general counsel for the department of health emergency preparedness and response administration and so in that capacity i do a lot of what we're here to talk about today and i'm looking forward to a great panel. >> very good. adrian, let's start with you, fema's developed the disaster legal -- disaster operationings legal reference. it's a rather large document
that goes through a number of different issues that obviously fema and others have to deal with from a disaster response perspective. what was the impetus behind putting that document together and what benefits have accrued as a result of having constructed it? >> so my office is charged with providing legal advice in crisis. that's primarily what we do. we advise emergency managers within the federal emergency management agency during -- prior to and after disasters and emergency declarations so we work very hard to facilitate, empower and give our staff what they need to work in that environment so we give them laptops, ipads, smart phones that can be operated with a hot spot. with give them tools such as tear sheets that are quick and
dirty reference material on 60 to 70 legal issues that come up in the post-disaster environment and one of those tools is the disaster operations legal reference there we call d dollar by its acronym. that's four to five hundred pages reference material that covers everything an emergency management lawyer at fema might face in a post-declaration environment. and it's not by any means an authoritative recitation of the law but on all the topics that might come up it provides a succinct easy-to-understand explanation along with obviously the appropriate statutory and regulatory references so it's just really a great tool that they have always at their disposal. it's on their ipads so wherever they go it's with them and provides that reference material for them. >> and since putting that together and making it a tool for your lawyers, how would you say it's improved your ability
to provide counsel advice to your leadership and state and local agencies that may be seeking disaster assistance? >> well, from when i started in 2000 and used to deploy to joint field offices i can remember literally sitting on the floor at some eeoc somewhere without connectivity to the internet with whatever i could carry with me in terms of reference materials until someone could set up a table and computer for me. today an attorney may still be sitting on the floor but they'll have internet connectivity, have that reference material and they can hit the ground running and time is of the essence in a response environment so they are never at a loss for the materials they need and so the responsiveness has improved dramatically. and of course the timeliness of our advice is critical. so these tools, the technology that we provide has made it --
made a huge difference in terms of timeliness factor. >> so keeping on point here with -- on the preparedness side of things, marie-claire, the district put together a legal handbook, some would argue perhaps modeled off of fema's dlr. what was the driving force behind the district taking that step, a step that quite frankly many other local jurisdictions have not taken. >> so as adrian said, it's a situation where time is of the essence. what we had was several different agencies that are responsible for several different aspects of response and as we all know, there are always silos and in this particular situation, the district was going through its updating the preparedness framework and district response plan in early 2014.
this became -- and forgive me, i am not with the department of homeland security which actually the district's department of homeland security and emergency management which prepared this document but i was one of the persons involved with this development. the department of health had already back in the sect obama inaugural, i had prepared a manual for public health emergency preparedness and that included all of the potential issues that could arise, case law that we may need, form documents, public health emergency declarations, etc. and those documents were provided by to senior officials as well as colleagues in the general counsel's sufs that we would have them in the event that they were needed and that
document actually is the same framework that this -- that the district's emergency preparedness legal handbook is based on and we use thumb drives and handed them out to whoever needed to have them. at the end of the day you don't know what's going to happen. internet will probably be the first thing to go down in an emergency so we have these at our fingertips. ours is not quite as in-depth as fema's. our document is about half that size and it includes checklists for various agency counsel who may be called on to respond to various things. so it's tied to the esf structure and, for example, the department of health we have a specific role in n there and then we work down from their there coordinating with other agencies and their counsel.
it's just -- it's been a great thing and in fact what it's led to is the department of health is in the process of publishing a public health emergency preparedness legal manual and bench back because we recognize not only do legal counsel need to have this information but the judiciary is often forgotten. so we've been working with the courtings, we're doing a seminar on 9/11 of this year and -- for training of law and science for judges and so all of these things are an evolving process. the main thing is that it's a living document and as things happen -- for example, when this was drafted -- when this was released there was no -- ebola was not on anyone's mind and i'll stop there. >> we will definitely be talking about ebola here. so moving a little past on the preparedness side and diving
into real-world incidents, i'm going to start with george and dan on this and start by asking on september 11, 2001, could each of you briefly describe where you were and what you were doing? >> well, ironically, dan and i were supposed to be together in washington, d.c. that day. as i mentioned earlier, dan and i had kind of evolved as like a butt of a tag team with me being the chief lawyer for the nypd and dan being my chief city l liaison. so there had been an issue regarding a world economic forum that was being planned in 2001 and actually the federal government had wanted 1,000 new york city police officers to come to d.c. and to help police the event and dan and i were responsible to find of figure out how that would work and
frankly we had some concerns pertaining to civil liability issues for police officers should there be incidents that new york city police officers -- because it would have been a novel circumstance and that's a lot of police officers, 1,000 and what if the officers got hurt? and dan was here setting up a meeting in the attorney general's office and i was going to brief the commissioner the morning and get a train and meet you so you could pick up your end. >> at the moment of the attack i was here in d.c. and then spend much of the next 12 hours finding ways to get back to new york city. but it was a -- obviously a completely unprecedented situation. i have to remark on -- listening to my fellow panelists and the pranls they're putting in place to prepare people and especially the lawyers -- the more work
that is done, this will be a major issue but the more work that's done on a blue-sky day in preparing for what's to come, even if you haven't directly anticipated the disaster it will be brought to bear. we spent a lot of time under the giuliani administration but with all first responders and the office of emergency management preparing for disasters. obviously we didn't conceive of and think of preparing for this disaster but all of the techniques, all of the concepts, everybody's role is was roughly understood in advance and having been able to fall back on a playbook much on the lines of what doh here in d.c. and what fema has done enormously valuable. and i also think when we look at this situation we often times think about -- when i say "situation" responding to disasters or attacks, we think of the major cities which are
somewhat more robust and somewhat more mature in their response capabilities but we need to think about those areas in the united states that are -- have less robust first responder capability but are equally vulnerable or as vulnerable. in any event, for us it was -- for me it was getting back to new york, teaming up with then commissioner grasso, now judge grasso, getting briefed by the mayor. it was somewhat going to be my role in the event of a disaster to be his liaison with the federal government. that plugged in nicely and by about 24 hours after the attack george and i were positioned with the federal agencies, very cleverly the decision was made to separate the governments.
the city and state had their temporary headquarters on a peepee pier, a cruise ship pier. >> first at the academy. >> right. and then the federal government and federal agencies set up in a hidden garage. it was a secret. i recall george and i just one moment of humor, we has been told as liaisons we'd be told the location of the garage but that it was a secret, we couldn't tell our families, it was very important the federal government and its agencies be protected in the event of a secondary attack. i took it quite seriously, i remember thinking "is anyone following me?" and i get there and it's a garage on the west side highway. >> parking garage. >> but in front of it they have sandbags and a mounted gun. [ laughter ] i think you might be giving it away, folks. >> unfortunately in new york on that day it wasn't the only location with sandbags and
mounted guns. just on the theme of where we were that day and in terms of practicality and overarching take away concept for people who are either general counsel or find themselves as lawyers or any way involved in something like that, i can sum up in one word the overarching quality required on that day and going forward and it's flexibility. write down from one word what i say, write down the word flexibility. dan talked about plans and one thing about new york city and the nypd, we love to have plans. and it's great. frameworks, as i said, i came up through the ranks as a police officer so i fully understood that. but you know what? a lot of that what we did and certainly what i was doing on that day in the first 24 hours there was really no play book for and swhapd that it was just
a cascading series of events. i gave the precursor about how i started the day and i remember very clearly i was driving in on the long island expressway all focused -- it was kind of a big deal to me to be going to the attorney general's office to start scoping out this plan that we had never been done before so obviously i'm thinking of that and i'm getting a call as i'm entering the midtown tunnel from our first step at the time who i did a tremendous amount of work with that day, someone named joe dunn and as i tried to pick up his call we lost contact and to make a long story short, by the time i tried to reconnect with joe thinking we were going to be talking about what we were going to be doing in washington i get through to his secretary and as she was getting ready to put me into joe she started screaming about a plane hitting the world trade center. and hanging up. and just as that happens i'm
coming on to the fdr drive just in time to see the first building that had been hit, the north tower. and it was just this monstrous fire. i mean, it was tremendously scary. and to fast forward so that was very close to the building and i went into the building ironically with a chief who was a friend of mine who had been instrumental in taking action to stop what would have the -- a major terrorist attack in new york by just entering an apartment in brooklyn where some terrorists were planning to bomb subways, which is another story. so we're looking at each other thinking "is that what we're dealing with or is it an accident?" and just as i got into the building i saw -- i went into the commissioner's office to see and that's where i saw the second plane hit. so then we knew we were in attack mode. so fast forwarding, i'm thinking about -- my brain is racing. now all of a sudden the whole
thing with washington which was such a big deal shortly is completely forgotten. and thinking about what are we going to do? who would what should my role be? what would did i see for myself as deputy commissioner? and really not working with any kind of disaster play book but pulling into mind, you know, what did i typically do for the job? . what was i particularly good at? and it dawned on me that we'd have top commanders, operational commanders right on the scene at the base of the world trade center trying to figure out how they were going to direct things operationally. i remembered from previous training one of our great problems had been -- although we'd never had anything on that scale before -- is everybody in the world tries to respond to the scene and you create this gridlock atmosphere and nobody can do anything about anything. so i thought to myself, let me get to the scene, let me attach -- i figured the chief of
manhattan south, it's a big all the 6'6" guy, you couldn't miss him, alan hale. i said let me find chief hale, he'll be there, let me attach myself to hale and if nothing else i can start running interference with different city and state people, federal people and create space for the operational people to do their job. so i was on my way there and i came -- i made a point of passing a location called 75 barclay which is literally a stone's throw from the towers and that's where mayor giuliani was setting up with the police commissioner and that's when i ran into dunn and i told dunn what i wanted to do and dunn said we were looking at the flames of both towers and literally what we could see at the time it looked like from a ticker tape parade which was actually the metal and bodies.
that's the scene we were looking at from the top towers. it was just unbelievable. it was something ripped out of a science fiction thing. and joe said to me he would rather i go back to headquarters because we were setting up a situation in police headquarters and as bad as that was at the time we didn't see the towers coming down. in fact, it was five minutes before the first tower came down. but we didn't see that happening so we were looking at an unprecedented disaster and an attack. but in terms of the event, a long-term fire, dunn wanted me to go and assist setting up the situation room with command center -- one police plaza, police headquarters. so that probably save mid-life because it turned me around for about a block in the other direction. and then the roar, i thought, when the south tower came down, i actually thought a third plane hit.
it was still -- i was right there -- >> george, let's stop right there for one second because i want to come back to that in one moment but i want to bring adrian into this conversation because unlike 9/11 it was a no-notice event for us, literally planes coming out of nowhere, superstorm sandy which obviously had a tremendous and devastating impact on much of the northeast was a notice event. you knew it was coming, we could all see it on the weather channel. what were you doing in the time leading up to that disaster as either the deputy council at the time trying to assist your leadership in getting ready for what everyone knew was going to be a catastrophic event. >> before i address that point, very briefly on the no-notice event. the vast majority of states, localities, don't have attorneys
dedicated to emergency management so often times the attorneys called upon are from the department of health or police or fire or other emergency responder legal counsel offices and one of the things that's really important for all of them to remember and to be mindful of is you first have to make sure that the legal office itself can function post-event. what if your legal office is destroyed by a fire or a flood or a hurricane? can you actually perform your function functions? so i want to put a plug in there for all legal offices, especially in the public sector to be aware and to plan and consider continuity of operations. where's your server? where's your backup data? how do you reach your attorneys if you're unable to report the the office? all of that is responsibility that at the very least in a post-event environment you have the capacity to at least access your data and your information and fundamentally your people. in an event where we have notice
p fema has -- my office has the luxury of a couple of hundred attorneys that are spread across the country that we can deploy and activate wherever we need to so we have attorneys that are assigned the sole role of deploying to field offices, we have teams that train together, we have attorneys in ten different regions across the country. and so as fema begins to activate in preparation for an approaching hurricane, for example, the lawyers are activated right along with all of those elements. and there can be many attorneys. and probably for an approaching hurricane, we would probably have 40 to 50 attorneys dedicated to just that function.
we have that luxury because that's what we do for a living. most state and local governments don't have that many attorneys. so it's really important, especially folks that are the ability to have notice of an event in advance really pay attention to the various readiness activities you can undertake to at least be able to take over those duties when need be. >> very good. so marie claire, obviously sandy did not have a direct impact on the district, although i know having been here at the time that it was something we were all looking out for. but there was another more recent incident that affected really the globe coming out of africa primarily and was affecting us all, through the television if not directly and that was the ebola crisis. tell us a little bit about, as that began to unfold and got a
lot of media attention, perhaps a disproportionate amount, what was your leadership looking for from you in terms of how the district was going to respond to that if in fact you had a case break out inside the district? >> so as far as ebola is concerned, the director of the department of health, dr. garcia, was responsible for all things equal in the district. and i am the sole counsel for health emergency preparedness. but at least we have one. we had the benefit of having already gotten a lot of our authorities and all of those requirements together. whatever the circumstance was, we'd be able to push out a public health emergency declaration. but i'll step back and say in the district of columbia, the department of health cannot declare a public health emergency unless the mayor declares a public emergency
first. the mayor must do it. but in getting ready for ebola, there were a lot of things that were happening at the same time. and while the focus was primarily on what was going on in the new york/new jersey area, there was a similar situation with dulles airport being one of the major international airports as well. there were a series of documents that needed to be created quickly, things that nobody really thought about. we've got quarantine and isolation law, regulations, orders, all of those things, but nothing specific to this case. and so what we had to do, we had to work closely with our regional partners in carving out something that was going to work
for everybody with the district of columbia. people coming into dulles are filling out a form if they are determined to be -- if they were determined to be likely a candidate for follow-up. if they met some of the criteria at dulles airport, they reported they were going to a hotel in springfield, they might be coming to the ritz carlton in d.c. so we don't really have control over what's happening. you have to take people's information on face value. that was a situation that raised hairs. what we did in the district -- dr. garcia determined that he was not going to force quarantine. and so what we did was we created two agreements, one being a voluntary -- well, we have the voluntary reporting -- the mandatory reporting on a
daily basis which was reported to our disease surveillance and epidemiology folks here. we then had, for persons who had been exposed, we had a voluntary isolation in lieu of forced quarantine agreement that would be signed. and those people also had to report on a daily basis. before we got any of those things together, i will say for the new yorkers here, i got on the phone and i spoke with roz buckles and i spoke with a couple of other people in new york city just to make sure that we were somewhat on the same page and had some consistency. and so we were ready to move forward, you know, on. same battle rhythm. we had -- while everyone was focused on casey hiccox, we had a situation here, attorneys do what attorneys do.
we received notice from an attorney that his client was not going to force -- was not going to quarantine herself and he was challenging the force quarantine. it was fortunately resolved and so, you know, we never had any issues with news media. that was just one of the things that we had to do. but there were just a series of documents that we had to come up with. we had to come up with a -- you know, quickly come up with all of the authorities because we knew we were going to get challenges. >> right. >> and the main thing was just ensuring that the legal folks were involved regionally in the tracking, the patient tracking, the development and the resolution of these cases. >> so dan and george, let's pick it up on 9/11. obviously the planes have gone in, you're scrambling. talk to us a little bit about what ultimate assignments you were given by the mayor and the
police commissioner once things started to, at least not settle down, but at least some idea what we were going to do to respond. >> i'll pick up where i left off. and again, i'm starting with my overriding theme of flexibility and initiative. initially nobody was giving me assignments. i was giving myself assignments. i talked about how i was going to the towers. and then i saw dunn, dunn told me to go back to the building, get to the eighth floor and start getting the command center going. he thought he was going to go spend a little time with the mayor. the way the day worked out. the police commissioner stayed
attach to the mayor and joe dunn ended back in 1 pp kind of running operations from the building which was absolutely crucial. but then there's that explosion. i think it's a third plane. and i'm sure everybody here has seen those clouds. you know, when you watch it on television, it can look like the clouds were a little slow. but i actually saw the clouds hit into the canyons and i was monstrous. i was with a couple of people and we got hit with the clouds. when that happened you thought you were dead. i throw that in just in the context. we're talking about all kinds of disasters here from zero to ten. you have to be able to deal with that. i thought i was dead. but i wasn't, you know. fortunately we got through that cloud and then me and one of my men, you know, we got into a little delicatessen store and we were strategizing, what do you do. i stayed focused on, look, the last thing dunn told me, go to building.
i told the detective who was with me, let's get to headquarters and we left. now at that time, in my mindset, i was thinking just about everybody behind me -- and i knew i was leaving the mayor and the police commissioner and the first deputy commissioner at 75 barclay. i didn't know if anybody made it. that's the kind of mindset, you know, people were having on that day. the rumors were running rampant about who didn't make it. there were rumors about me, rumors about everybody. i got back into headquarters. again, i'm emphasizing you're working when you find yourself in something like that, you're working with limited and evolving information. phones were down immediately. we weren't running around doing texting. texting came into the police department after this incident because it was one of the few things that was held up that day, except none of us were doing it. it wasn't much help.
i got into headquarters thinking that more planes were coming in. and that police headquarters could be a substantial target. and not knowing where the hierarchy was. so i made my way up to the command center on the eighth floor and there was a chief -- you know, it was very helpful for me -- this depends where you find yourself in an agency. i kind of grew up in that agency. i knew how it worked and who the people were and the players. but the more you know, if you're in the general counsel's role, the more you can figure out, to know the inside/out. not just policies and laws but who the people are, how things are done. it's crucial in a whole variety of respects. my first task that i assigned myself, because i was the top ranking person because it's civilian authority in the police department and i was the deputy commissioner. i grabbed the chf