tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 2, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
are suit abable for transfer to australia. we'll be doing that quickly, and we would like to see these people come to australia just as quickly as we can. now, i have to acknowledge that there will be time -- it will take time to undertake this processing. we need to insure that, firstly, these are people that the unhcr have recognized are, indeed, genuine refugees. we have to do the security checks that are associated with these kinds of arrangements and then make the suitable arrangements to bring them to australia. now, we will commence this process just as quickly as we can. 12,000 is a large intake. so, clearly, it's going to take some time, but our objective is to do it as quickly as possible. >> domestic violence is another issue in which both major parties agree more needs to be
done. labor pushing the government to take action after three more tragic deaths. more than 60 have occurred in terms of deaths of women and children already this year. >> the leader of the opposition. >> my question's to the prime minister. in the past week, australians have looked on in horror as three women have been killed at the hands of someone they knew, allegedly, highlighting the need for urgent and meaningful action on family violence. will the prime minister declare that family violence is a national crisis? and will the prime minister join with me and commit to a family violence package, including front-line legal services to be funded to ensure women suffering from family violence get the right legal support and programs to keep women safe at home and to help identify opportunities to prevent violence by mapping perpetrator activities? >> i call the prime minister. >> well, mr. speaker, i do thank the leader of the opposition for his question and i respect the
passion and the commitment that he brings to this cause. frankly, it is an absolute disgrace that we still have these horrific incidents of family violence. and the point i make is that violence is violence, and we do not in any way explain it or minimize it by saying that it is domestic violence. in fact, if anything, there is more horror to violence when it takes place inside the home than when it takes place in other contexts, because the home should be a refuge and a haven, not a place for persecution and violence. so, i make the fundamental point, mr. speaker, in response to the leader of the opposition -- anyone who strikes a woman is not a real man. anyone who strikes a woman or a child is a coward.
and all of us have a very heavy duty to say to our brothers, to our fathers, to our sons, to our mates, that domestic violence is never, ever acceptable, never, ever justifiable. now, i certainly don't rule out another summit. i do not rule that out at all. i know that this suggestion is made in very good faith by the leader of the opposition. obviously, much is already happening. there was a summit on domestic violence earlier this year. as members of this house would know, there is a panel headed by rosie beatty and ken lay, the former victorian police commissioner advising coag on this matter. there is a $30 million national campaign about to get under way, which the government announced on the fourth of may.
on the 17th of may, we committed an additional $14 million toward the 800-respect hotline. there is also $100 million over four years to support the implementation of the second action plan. what i think we need is concerted action and maybe a summit might help, but what we really want is action. now, i'll have more to say about this in the next few days. essentially, we need to insure that men with the predisposition to violence against members of their families are better monitored, better tracked, so that the instant there is any suggestion of harm, the police can act, because the last thing we want to see is repeated atrocities like those we saw in this country last week. >> in what was to be tony
abbott's final question time as prime minister, he was pressingly asked questions by the leader of the opposition about his leadership and how confident he was he would continue. >> the leader of the opposition. >> my question is to the prime minister. the prime minister said earlier today, and i quote, "i'm worried about being the best possible prime minister." [ laughter ] can the prime minister nominate a single person sitting behind him who thinks he's the best possible prime minister? >> leader of the house? >> mr. speaker, that clearly -- i'm one. i'm one. but mr. speaker -- >> members of my left -- >> -- that question is clearly out of order. it is not about the prime minister's responsibility. it is simply an argument dressed up as a question and should be ruled out of order. >> yes, i agree. i'm ruling the question out of order. the leader of the opposition has the call. >> thanks, mr. speaker. my question's to the prime minister. in the two years since he became prime minister, unemployment is
up, debt and deficit's up, growth's down, confidence is certainly down. is this the record of the best possible prime minister? >> the prime minister has the call. >> well, this -- this, mr. speaker, from the leader of the opposition, who back-stabbed two prime ministered and then lied about it on radio -- >> members on my left -- >> and lied about it on radio. now, now -- >> members on my left will cease in dejecting. the leader of the opposition. >> that's true. >> that's true. >> and mr. speaker, all this leader of the opposition can do is play politics, play cambria games, indulge in all this kind of silliness when, mr. speaker, the people of australia want a
government which gets on with the job, and that's exactly what we have done every day since the election. we have been focused on backing hard-working australians. we have been focused on jobs, on growth, on community safety -- >> member from -- >> we have been cutting taxes, building roads, encouraging free trade. and, mr. speaker, just in the last week -- just in the last we week, while members opposite have been engaging in cambria games, that's all they can do, more games for members opposite, we have been doing what the people of our country expect. we have been making our economy stronger, and there's no better proof of that, no better proof of that than the fact that we uncovered last week that unemployment is down, employment is up, 167,000 -- 167,000 new
jobs since this year began, 300,000 more jobs since this government was in office, because what we're doing, mr. speaker, we are working with the creative businesses of this country. we are working with the decent, hard-working people of our country. we are stopping those dodgy, dishonest, corrupt union officials that that leader of the opposition is constantly protecting. we are stopping them from ripping off the decent workers of our country. we are encouraging the decent businesses of our country to get on with it, with things like the free trade agreement with china that this leader of the opposition is trying to sabotage with a campaign of racist lies. now, i say to the leader of the opposition, stop listening to the cvamu. start listening to the decent people of australia who want this country to go ahead under
this government. >> having left the chamber, tony abbott walked back to his office and was visited by malcolm turnbull. the leadership spill was on. ultimately, of course, australia ended up with its fourth prime minister in a little more than two years. malcolm turnbull took over that role, but not before a dramatic night. >> the prime minister has not been capable of providing the economic leadership our nation needs. he has not been capable of providing the economic confidence that business needs. and we need a different style of leadership. we have lost 30 news polls in a row. it is clear that the people have made up their mind about mr. abbott's leadership. >> thank you for being here tonight. tonight there were two ballots conducted in the liberal party room, one ballot for leader, one ballot for deputy leader. in the leadership, which was contested by malcolm turnbull and tony abbott.
malcolm turnbull was successful on 54, tony abbott 44. >> very good. thank you. thank you all very much. truly i'm sorry to keep you up so late. this has been a very important day in the life of the nation, the government, and of course, of our party. >> yes, this is a tough day. but when you join the game, you accept the rules. >> i, malcolm turnbull do swear that i will well and truly serve the people of australia in the office of prime minister. >> i now invite you to subscribe the oath of office. congratulations, prime minister. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> and so, australia had a new prime minister. and by effect, a new government. what labour wanted to know for
the rest of the week in question time, would the policies of the abbott government remain or would there be a new direction under malcolm turnbull? >> my question's to the prime minister. in june 2014, when asked if he supported the government's first budget, the now prime minister said, and i quote, "i support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the budget, every single one." will the prime minister change the substance of this government, or is it just about its style? >> i call the prime minister. >> i thank the honorable member for his question. the honorable member would be very aware, the leader of the opposition will be very well aware that we operate a cabinet system of government in australia. and every member of the cabinet -- every member of the cabinet supports the cabinet's decisions, and all of the cabinet supported that budget. and when the leader of the
opposition invites me to sit here and unilaterally disown one policy or another, he demonstrates that he fails to understand that a cabinet government is a collective method of making decisions. we are a cabinet government. i will lead a traditional cabinet government, and policies will change in the light of changed conditions. of course they will. they will change all the time. they have to. they have to under any government. but we stand by every decision we make. the cabinet stands by every decision we make. and as we revise them and improve them in the light of experience, we will stand by those, too. so, the honorable member is inviting me to make a unilateral decision, and he should not be surprised to be disappointed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my question is to the prime
minister. private members bill on marriage equality moved has been passed by house. it would take half of the parliamentary time to get this voted on. it could be done tomorrow. will the prime minister allow a vote on this bill and allow members of his party a free vote as he's publicly called for previously? >> call the prime minister. >> well, i thank the honorable member for her question and i respect her interest, very, very deep interest in this issue. the marriage equality or same-sex marriage issue is a very significant one and one on which people of good faith, the best faith, honestly have different opinions, both on the honorable member's side of the house and on our side of the house. the -- historically, this issue has been resolved -- issues of this type have been resolved in parliament by free votes, and the honorable member is correct in referring to that.
another way of dealing with this -- another way of dealing with this is by a vote of the people. and the coalition, our government has decided that the resolution of this matter will be determined by a vote of the people, by all the people, via plebiscite to be held after the next election. now, the honorable member -- the honorable member, i hear the honorable member for isaacs call it a sellout. and again, it underlines -- now, again -- no, it underlines the utter failure of the opposition to approach issues other than in a thoroughly ideological way. the object is to be sure that australians either through their representatives or directly can make an honest, conscientious decision.
our government, our party room has decided that the decision will be taken by plebiscite. why is the opposition afraid of the people having a vote? why don't they want all australians having a vote? there is no greater virtue in a free vote here or a plebiscite. they are each means of resolving the matter. one, i grant you, is more expensive, but nonetheless, nonetheless, it is a very legitimate and democratic way of dealing with it. now, that is what we have resolved. now, let me say this, mr. speaker. at the next election -- at the next election, australians will have a choice. the labor party will say, vote for us and marriage equality will be dealt with by the politicians, by the parliament in a free vote after the election. and we will say, if we are re-elected to government, every single australian will have a
say, every single australian. >> the member for kingston. >> we all respect members of parliament. after all, we are all members of parliament, but we are just representatives. we're 150 in number. every single australian will have a vote on the issue after the next election, if we are returned to government. and how can the opposition seriously, credibly say that is anything other than thoroughly democratic? when did it cease to be democratic to let the people speak? >> the member for gordon has been warned twice. it's his final warning. the leader of the opposition has the call. >> thanks, mr. speaker. my question's to the prime minister. in 2010, the current prime minister said, and i quote, "i think people know what i stand for. you know, they know that i have strong convictions, committed principles, and i'm prepared to stand up for them." given that just in the last 24
hours, the prime minister has sold out on climate change, marriage equality, renewable energy and the darling, what other government policy is the prime minister willing to sell out to appease his personal ambition? >> the leader of the house will cease in dejecting. the leader -- leader of the house will cease in dejecting. the prime minister has the call. >> leader of the opposition, i must say. but mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, again, again, the leader of the opposition consistently confuses the means and processes with the objective. i support marriage equality. many of my colleagues do not. many of the leader of the opposition's colleagues do not. the question of how -- that's -- that's a substandard issue. the question of how to resolve
the matter, whether it is a free vote or a plebiscite, is a question of process. each approach has its advantages. one, i suppose, is faster and costs less. the other one keeps every australian safe and it has a cost. democracy has a price. keeping everybody on an important issue is surely a very legitimate and reasonable approach. and that -- the leader of the opposition objects to that. he talks about climate change. mr. speaker, the objective in climate policy is to cut your emissions, is to cut your emissions. there are many -- >> member from kingston is warned. >> the emissions trading scheme, regulation, emissions reduction fund, a carb tax and many, many others, many other techniques can achieve the same end. and so, the judgment for policymakers is what is the best
model, what is the best approach in the circumstances of the time. we have chosen as a government, thanks to the hard work of the environment minister, to go, to use an emissions reduction fund. he has demonstrated that it is cutting emissions at a very low cost. and this so upsets the opposition that they are now forgetting that climate policy is about cutting emissions and thinking that the goal is an emissions trading scheme. of course, i've supported an emissions trading scheme in the past. so did my party. so did john howard. it is a technique. but, and we have changed our policy. the critical question is what is our goal? our goal is cutting emissions. we are doing that. we are doing that in a manner that we believe is least cost. and so far, the work of the minister for the environment is demonstrating that that judgment is correct.
>> that's all in this dramatic emission of "question time wrap outsiwrap ." i'm tom connell. thanks for watching. the c-span networks feature weekends full of politics, nonfiction books and american history. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span, with nasa's announcement of liquid water on mars, the science, space and technology committee talked to the experts about the announcement and the possibility of life in space. and sunday evening at 6:30, policymakers, industry innovators, business leaders and media personalities discuss the issues driving the national conversation at the washington ideas forum. speakers include former massachusetts governor mitt romney and senior adviser to president obama valerie jarrett. on c-span2's book tv saturday night at 10:00 eastern on "after words," martha kumar discusses
her new book on presidential transitions. she's interviewed by former clinton administration former white house chief of staff matt mclarty. and saturday afternoon on "in depth," we're live with talk show host thom hartmann, who author aid "rebooting the american dream" and "threshold." join our three-hour conversation as we take your phone calls, texts and e-mails and tweets for thom hartmann. on american history tv on c-span3 saturday afternoon at 2:00. in his book "in the dead shall rise," author steve onie explores the events of the 1936 murder of 13-year-old mary fagan in marietta, georgia, and the arrest and lynching of jewish factory owner leo frank. and sunday afternoon at 4:00 on "real america," the federal energy administration documentary on the supply and demand of fossil fuels in the u.s. and a look at alternative energy sources. get our complete weekend schedule at c-span.org.
next, a debate on canada's foreign policy between party leaders stephen harper, thomas mulcair and justin trudeau. topics include canada/u.s. relations, the keystone xl pipeline and the current syrian refugee crisis. you'll hear all speakers speak in french and english, which is customary in canada. this is just under two hours. you don't know which of your factories will be demolished. >> russia's political leaders are not just rulers of their nation, they're country's owners. >> you don't know which of your arguments will be totally destroyed. >> i'm not prepared to sacrifice the african continent for some free-market ideology. >> and then you've got to come back and you're now rattled, you're shaken up. >> let's save the bleeding heart for somebody else.
it's time to change. >> and you don't know what the hell to say, but you've got to say something. >> i believe the 21st century will belong to china, because most centuries have belonged to china. >> blaming barack obama for the state that the world is in right now is like blaming a caribbean island for a hurricane. >> the lesson of north korea has been, if you are a third-rate, disfunctional country that manages to acquire a couple of crude nuclear devices, you remain a third-world, dysfunctional country with a couple of crude nuclear devices. >> if you want to engage in humanitarian interventions, do it with your own sons and daughters, not mine. [ speaking french ] >> and welcome to the munk debate on canada's foreign policy. [ speaking french ] and chair of the munk debates. it's my privilege to have the
opportunity to host tonight's historic proceedings. the first ever federal election debate devoted exclusively to foreign policy issues. [ speaking french ] first, the national television audience tuning in to this debate in french and english nationwide on cpac and chch television and across north america on sirius xm and c-span. also, a warm hello to our online audience watching this debate right now in french and english on munkdebates.com and on the websites of our official media partners, facebook canada and the "globe" and "mail." and hello to you, the over 3,000 members of the munk debates who fill roy munson hall to capacity for this --
[ speaking foreign language ] >> translator: let's start. >> and our debates under way. >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome mr. tom mulcair, leader of the new democratic party of canada. [ speaking french ] >> mr. thomas mulcair. >> next up is mr. stephen harper, the leader of the conservative party of canada. [ applause ]
>> translator: welcome, mr. harper, for the conservative party of canada. and finally, let me welcome mr. justin trudeau, leader of the liberal party of canada. >> well, gentlemen, we are glad to finally have the three of you here on stage. you've all agreed to the rules of this debate in advance, and i want to quote as a friendly reminder the rule that leaders will respect each other's right to speak in order to make points uninterrupted. so, let's get started. right now, the world is witnessing the largest humanitarian crisis since the second world war, as the conflict in syria and northern iraq rages on. mr. mulcair, you have pledged as prime minister to pull canada's military forces out of the international coalition fighting
isis. question for you is, if the threat the islamic state represents doesn't justify a military response, when would an ndp government use military force? >> translator: you have 90 seconds to respond. let's go. >> canada does have a role to play in fighting the horror that is isis. we can help stop the flow of arms, help stop the flow of funds and the flow of foreign fighters. there are more than 60 countries involved in the coalition. canada would remain a member with us, but only 12 are involved in the combat mission. >> translator: for me, it's important to remember that here in this evening, we are in the same room where we had jack leighton, and i will continue jack's work, and i will take the same quebecua and canadian values, values of solidarity, of
sustainable economic development. we want to project into the world scene. we don't want a canada that pollutes and goes to war. it's a canada that respects values. >> -- that a prime minister has to get right. this election is about change, and there is no area where canadians want change more than in that of our foreign affairs. prime minister has to maintain a good relation with the u.s. mr. harper's lost the respect of the white house. we have to make sure that we have a place on the world stage. we missed our turn on the security council. we have to take care of the defining issue of the age, which is climate change. we are the only country to have withdrawn from the quoto protocol. i'll defend your values, canadian values, on the world stage. where mr. harper's failed, we'll get it done. >> let's bring mr. harper into the debate for a seven-minute one-on-one with mr. mulcair for
the topic of intervention. >> translator: mr. harper, what's your opinion on the subject? >> translator: our response to this crisis in the region is a generous and balanced response. our response to the refugees, our humanitarian aid -- >> we have a balanced approach. we're giving a generous but responsible refugee policy. we're bringing additional humanitarian aid to the region, and we're also, obviously, participating in the international military effort against isis. why are we doing that? not simply because isis threatens to slaughter, literally, hundreds of thousands, create millions of additional refugees, but this is an organization that it wants to use parts of syria and iraq as an international base for terrorist operations, not just in the region, but also against this country. that's why we're there with our allies and that's why there is broad international support for this intervention that is necessary, not just for the region, but to protect our own
security interests. >> well, it's important to remember that this is not a nato mission. this is not a united nations mission. and to get back to your initial question, of course when it was a question of going into libya under the united nations' duty to protect, the ndp voted for those air strikes because it was a u.n. mission. when that started to morph into something completely different, we withdrew our support. so, the question answer to you is we understand that there will be times where under the nato charter or under our obligations at the u.n. to use force, and we won't shy away from that. but the answer here is the only thing we can do -- now, mr. harper always takes the same approach. when your only tool is a hammer, all problems resemble nails, but this is a complex situation. it's one that has deep roots in many years of divisive conflict in the region, and there is one area where canada is completely failing, and that is in dealing with the refugee crisis. my own family, the irish side of
it at the least, came over during the potato famines of the 1840s. and you know what? in quebec city, people went down to the docks, even though a lot of them were getting sick, and took in the most miserable in the world. that's canada. that's who we are. katheri katherine's family, the screws who were expelled from spain, they were taken in in the muslim countries that are today turkey, it was then the ottoman empire. that's the opening world that we can always aspire to. 2 million refugees living in our nato ally turkey. we're not doing enough to help. there are requests from the united nations to take in 10,000 by christmas. mr. harper is not even going to get near that number. they want 46,000 between now and 2019. the ndp government will get it done. >> if i could just maybe correct a couple facts here. first of all, none of our nato allies, not all of them are involved in the coalition, but none are opposed to it. they are all supportive of our mission against the islamic state. the united nations is not opposed. in fact, this intervention is
happening at invitation of the government of iraq under international law. in terms of refugees, canada's response has been generous and responsible. we've admitted so far 15% of all the world refugees from the region. in terms of our response to this recent crisis, even before it was in the headlines, i announced our intention to accept additional refugees. i have since announced a number of changes to our system to expedite that number, and we're doing so while at the same time making sure that we choose the refugees, that we choose those who are genuine refugees, the most vulnerable people, and also maintain all standards of security and other screening. this is a generous and responsible approach that canada is taking. >> gentlemen, i want to step in to refocus the discussion. we'll have ample opportunity to talk about the refugee crisis later in the debate. mr. mulcair, follow up more precisely on when the government would intervene and why. what are the criteria that you're looking for? >> sure. it's happened because we do talk, believe it or not. the prime minister consulted me when france was looking for
heavy airlift capacity in a crisis in maui. i agreed spontaneously. that's the kind of thing that canada could do. i gave you the libyan example. but with regard to isis, there are things that we can be doing. canada is one of the only countries in the world, and it is the only nato country not to have signed the arms trade treaty. now, we find ourselves in some particularly curious company here with countries like saudi arabia, iran, north korea, belarus. and those are not the types of countries we normally identify with, but they're countries like canada that have refused to sign that treaty. that treaty, when enforced, can help stop the flow of arms to isis. we can get a lot more serious as the united nations security council has asked in successive resolutions 2170 and 2129, both speak specifically to stopping the flow of money. we can be involved in that. and on the flow of foreign fighters, never forget that in mr. harper's failed bill c-51, which was backed by mr. trudeau's liberals, there was
nothing on deradicalization here at home. the ndp has a clear plan to bring in 2,500 more police officers across the country. we know that we have to work with faith groups of all descriptions. but you know, mr. harper always has one group in mind, and he tends to finger-point and objectify one particular group. he doesn't talk about houses of worship. he specifically refers to mosques. and muslims across canada know how to interpret that for exactly what it is. >> i want to bring the prime minister in again. >> look, let's be clear that the government of canada is pursuing all levels of response of this particular problem, not just refugees and humanitarian aid that i mentioned earlier. we are pursuing antiradicalization efforts in canada in terms of financing of the terrorist organizations. we're involved with a range of coalition partners, the world bank, the g-20, working on all of those issues, but none of that explains why the other parties think we should also not take direct military action with our key allies against the islamic state.
this is a group that not only left to its own devices would slaughter literally millions of people in its wake but has an intention, a stated intention to attack, to launch terrorist attacks around the world, including against this country. and as it indicated, it has the capacity to engineer and inspire such attacks. we see that all around the world. there is no -- we have a clear reason for being there, supported widely by our allies in the international community. why we would abandon this mission is a question that's begging. we have to help humanitarian support, stop the flow of fighter and funds and fight isis in the region. we keep pressure so they can't use it as a base of terrorist operations. >> translator: mr. trudeau, off to you. >> translator: thank you very much. first of all, there is the engagement in the middle east, and we' know it's going to be
long-term. >> -- northern iraq and syria. and we have is three different perspectives on what we need to do. mr. mulcair has said he doesn't think we should be in this fight at all. mr. harper hasn't seen a fight in the middle east that he hasn't wanted to send canadian troops into, starting with 2003 and george w. bush's iraq war. the liberal party, as we have in the past, know that canada has an important role to play on the world stage and should be a strong partner in the coalition, but we disagree with mr. harper in terms of how to do it, as in dropping bombs. we think as we've done in afghanistan for many years and other places arged the globe, we should be training up the local forces so they can defeat ice on the ground, because we know that sending in western troops isn't always the best possible outcome and indeed often makes things worse. we have to ensure we're equ equipping local people to bring the fight to isis and canada has
a strong and real capacity to do that. and that actually ties to something that president obama was talking about today, which is a call to once again re-engage and revitalize united nations peacekeeping. the fact that canada has nothing to contribute to that conversation today is disputing, because this is something that a canadian prime minister started. and right now there is a need to revitalize and refocus and support peacekeeping operations across the country, around the world. >> i'd like to bring mr. mulcair back in. >> well, as the sergeant's tragic death on the front lines reminded us, this is not just a training mission. canadian special forces have been painting for targets for our air strikes. we know that. they've been involved in live fire on the front line. we know that. the ndp's taken a clear position on this since day one. we have said that we should not be involved in the combat mission. we have said that there are several things that canada can and should be doing. there are more than 60 countries
involved in this effort. only 12 of them are involved in the combat mission, and that's why we think that we should be stopping the flow of arms, stopping the flow of funds, stopping the flow of foreign fighters. but no, we don't think that our proper place is in that combat mission. >> let's be clear, canada's still involved in the peacekeepi peacekeeping, and there is like the sinai, we still contribute peacekeepers around the world. obviously, there is not a peacekeeping mission to be had right now in iraq and syria. and we're not just involved in an aerial campaign, as has rightly been observed. we're also involved, in fact, in training troops. in northern iraq, we are working with peshmerga forces who have been an effective fighting force protecting themselves and other minorities against the onslaught of isis. i visited them there. we're extremely proud of the work that they are doing. but the reason we're also involved in the aerial campaign is through much of iraq and syria, there is, in fact, no ground resistance to isis. and the only way to keep them back, to hold them back, keep them in their positions and keep
them from simply being able to sit back and plan attacks against us is to keep the military pressure on them. that's why president obama and our other allies are involved in an aerial campaign. >> the challenge canada faces in any time we engage the world, is to support our national interests in a constructive and positive way. now, there's no question that it's absolutely in our national interests to help defeat isis, to work with international partners on that. but how canada can best help is by doing more of the kind of training of infantry troops on the ground that we developed tremendous capacities to do in afghanistan and in other places. that is something that canada has an advantage and an ability to do on top of the necessary humanitarian and much more refugee support that i know we'll talk about later. but that kind of engagement around the world, where canada is focused on the things that we can do differently and often better than anyone else is what
we have to get back to. that's why this opportunity to re-engage with the 128,000 peacekeepers active around the world right now in 39 different countries -- or locations -- is something that, quite frankly, that the president of the u.s., our closest friend and neighbor, is asking for countries to get involved in something that was at its origin a canadian initiative and that we not be engaged in a constructive way on saying, yes, let's renew peacekeeping and be part of it for a more stable world for all. >> mr. trudeau, since mr. mulcair had the first word, we'll give him the last in this session. >> president putin's statements today are cause for concern for all of us. this is a caldron. this is also a time for canadian values to be projected into that situation. our strong desire for peace -- mr. harper just talked about peacekeeping. the last time the liberals were in power, we went from number one in peacekeeping in the world to number 32, and now we're at number 68 under mr. harper. we know canadians want us to do
a lot better, and we will. >> gentlemen, i thank you for a civil and substantive debate on this first topic and now we'll move on to our second item to discuss tonight, the refugee crisis. needless to say, canadians have been deeply moved during this election by the crisis, the devastating toll that it's having on women, children and famili families. mr. harper, the question's to you. can you explain to canadians how your latest change in policy reflects an adequate response, given the enormous of this crisis? >> translator: let's proceed. you have 90 seconds to respond. >> translator: thank you very much. i explained already that we have a very generous and balanced way to deal with refugees, and we are continuing with our military mission against, so to speak, the islamic state. >> in the headlines, we denounced our intention to accept an additional 10,000 refugees. that's on top of additional numbers that were already coming
in, on top of the fact that we have already resettled 15% of refugees from the region in the international community. we have since announced our intention, and in fact, i've implemented changes to expedite the process so we can move those additional numbers in much more quickly, and we've been doing so in a way that makes sure we pick the most -- representatives of the most vulnerable groups, genuine refugees, and we maintain all standards of security screening. this is a responsible approach. it's credential in line with what most other countries are now doing. in addition to that, we've also announced during this campaign the establishment of additional funds for humanitarian assistance. canada is one of the largest providers in absolute dollars of humanitarian assistance in the region, $800 million directly to the region, over $1 billion to the wider region. we've announced an additional fund. i know canadians have responded with a desire to respond generously, and we encourage canadians to contribute to that fund. we will match contributions. let us remember, regardless of
what the response is to refugees, the vast number of people will remain in the region and will continue to need our help for the foreseeable future. >> translator: mr. trudeau, please get involved in the discussion. >> translator: first of all, one must understand the degree of the crisis in the planet. there are 60 million displaced people, refugees. and as a country, we must, having always welcomed people like that and having seen that our economy is benefited from it, we must welcome them and we must know that in the next decades, there will be more refugees because of climate changes and other issues, and we must take a spot of leadership and take multilateralism and show how all of the planet can react to the issue of refugees.
for example, we have a commitment at three levels. first of all, here in canada, we must welcome these people. we propose 245,000 syrians six months ago and we continue to say that that should be done at the beginning. for years already, i have seen mr. harper saying in the house of commons saying, yes, we're going to do something, and we don't. second, we must work with the international community, with the countries around lebanon, iraq, to help the refugees and also to help them in europe add to the wave of immigrants. and we must also work with the countries of origin. we must stop the war. >> translator: during the last decade, canada received 250,000
refugees, the biggest settlement program on the planet. according to the numbers, there are 15 million displaced people in the world, maybe even more in the greater region. of course, that is the reason for which we must have a balanced way of accepting the refugees. there are many that remain there, and there is also military action against the islamic state that are determined to create more refugees and the murder of millions of people, literally. >> translator: people are unanimous in the country, we must do more. canada always benefited from being an open country and from being people in a crisis situation, be it the hungarians
who were fleeing behind the sovietic situation, be those fleeing to come to canada. we welcomed tens of thousands of people, and mr. harper wants to talk about security. our security was always our concern, even in situations that were extreme and even with less resources than what we have now. so, this idea that we must do more -- people are saying that the prime minister, the premiers are saying it all over the country, and this government does not want to do more. and really, when we look like people that say that we can accept 50,000 before christmas, we must understand that canada must be again the country we were before. we already announced -- >> translator: it started
already. >> the reality is the canadians expect us to react in a way that is generous and also responsible. we haven't opened the flood gates. some european countries just started letting everybody in, and now they're trying to reverse those policies. i've asked our officials, what can we do to speed up the process? what kind of numbers can we get in and how quickly while maintaining our security and not literally spending tens of millions of additional dollars. and these are the numbers we've arrived at. we're not chasing headlines. we've arrived at it through consulting officials and through proceeding on a program that is by all standards generous. you know, we've said 10,000 more. the united states has said 10,000 more. it's a country ten times larger than us. i think we're responding in a way that is responsible and also generous. and that's the responsibility of the government of canada, not to chase headlines. it's to make sure we act in a way that we can actually fulfill. >> mr. harper, we stand here tonight just a few blocks from ireland park. ireland park was where in 1847,
38,000 irish men, women and children fleeing the famine arrived on the shore of toronto. there were 20,000 citizens of toronto at that time, and they accepted 38,000 refugees who proceeded to build and contribute to this country, to this city, and to who we are today. canada has always done more. it's not about politics, it's about being the country that we have always been. >> translator: and it is at that level that not only you are failing as canadians, but also the entire world is looking at us, to look at us, and what is going on with canada? you have already -- you were a country that were coming people and diversity that you were bringing, people that want to build a better future for their
communities and for their children. we are giving them that opportunity. and now mr. harper is saying security will have to do the minimal necessary. no, it is not that, because mr. harper, who is talking about resisting tyrants and dictators. and you know what we do with tyrants and dictators. the families that are escaping the local violence, what do they do? what will they do when -- what you are doing is that you are removing their health benefit, mr. harper. this is what you are doing. [ applause ] >> translator: we have admitted 23,000 people -- >> we've had a commitment to an additional 10,000, and on top of that during this campaign, an additional 10,000 that we sped up the process on. we're not living in a different era here. we're living in an era where people are fleeing a terrorist war zone, and we obviously must have security screening.
in terms of the policy on support for refugees. let's be very clear, we have health support for our refugees and immigrants. where we stop those benefits claims that have been turned down because they're bogus. >> that's not true, mr. harper. you know that's not true. >> it's a responsible thing to do. >> translator: the time has passed. >> it's important for canadians to remember when we've gotten it wrong in the past and when we have to learn from our experiences. in vancouver, a lot of those people were killed. they weren't allowed in canada. more recently, a boat arrived in bc. one of our ministers said they were terrorists. a great number of them have been
[ 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.
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. >> try being to help 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 disrespectful. 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 responsible legislation. we did get that balance right. canadians expect their government to do that in a way that 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 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 for 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 us 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 canada's 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 thinks 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. he said he was against it but afraid of mr. harper making political -- >> that's not -- >> you have to have the courage of your convictions.
>> you said we could 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 say the same thing. i'm very proud to know and understand quebec and have strong support there. but i know that 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 mansbridge in english.
you wouldn't talk about it at the mcklain debate. 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, 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 peaceful protests? that's fair? you want to stand up for that? you voted for that? 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. it's a concern we had. 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. people playing politics, 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 put 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
actually protecting us in every possible way. we need to trust elected parliamentarians to do that job, not just appointed 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.
[ speaking french ] [ speaking french ] >> of course one of the things we have led on, we're very proud of, is our child, maternal, and newborn health initiative. we have been able to assemble an international coalition of 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
and unite the range of countries 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 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 know it's a pressing issue that required something from the prime minister. >> 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. 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 policy challenge 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 stopping the barrel bombs in see ya. 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 fascinating to 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. harper has refused to put them on the list of 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. >> canada has the largest sanction list. 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. >> they're listed by the americans. >> 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 productively with 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 best environmental solution in terms of moving product to market. 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 do not, we have to 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. you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. 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 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 interferes 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. trudeau, let's bring in 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. i fully 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 unequivocal 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 at that threat is on the front line of threats directed against us.
>> last word. >> the issue of israel, where we most disagree is liberals with mr. harper is he made support for mr. harper a domestic political football. 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 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.
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 true. >> 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 imposing 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 cannot -- cannot 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 c. we're going to have the cleanest energy sector, and we're doing that without imposing taxes on the people. >> you somehow supported and aided the closing down of the coal fire plants here in ontario, you and your government fought tooth and nail begins the on the 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 no part of, and even blocking and ridiculing from your gang in ottawa. and that's, at the same time, now taking credit for it. >> that's just factually untrue. [ applause ] >> 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 alberta, nova scotia and saskatchewan. you talk about the united states and emissions from their coal fire electricity sector are bigger than emissions from the entire canadian economy. we're leading the world on this factor. [ speaking in french ] >> translator: thank you, mr. harper, please get involved in the conversation. >> translator: in fact, you know that mr. harper is totally right when he says that the liberals use their kyoto signature as p.r. 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 were published
every year that i was minister in quebec. i was able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. we had a plan to do it. we're going to be basing ourselves largely on the successful cap and trade model that we used in canada and the u.s. to reduce so 2 emissions that was causing acid rains. we're not going to be imposing the details of the means to get there. what we're going to be talking about is the can combiombined on of result. no more excuses possible. no more fake stuff from theas:f liberals. >> $40 billion in infrastructure isn't fake. >> the ndp will get it done. i have that track record. we have that record. these are hard caps, there are limits, and they will be enforced. >> he is making the kind of announcements that aren't followed up by any real plan to
achieve this. because he has taken the decision that what he has to do at all costs is balance mr. harper's budget. he cannot make the kinds of investments that 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. these are the choices that we've made that you quite frankly cannot make. and even, as you approach, as you announce with tremendous strength and pomp your climate change. >> not as much pomp as you. [ applause ] >> we have your friend and ally, the ndp premier of alberta who said, you know what, she's not so crazy on your approach to client change reductions. when you can't even get an ndp
premier to endorse your plan, you know you are in trouble. >> alberta is of one mind with us on the obligation of result, but this is about sustainable development. and when you say that your only way of governing is going to be to dump a massive economic debt on the backs of future generations, are you correct. because mr. harper has left a debt on future generations. the ndp has the best track record of any party in canada for balanced budgets. when we tack over for saskatchewan. there was one exception, but it turned out that favre was a liberal. [ applause ] douglas took over saskatchewan that the liberals had left in bankruptcy. ran 17 balanced budgets in a
row. when we bring in $15 quality child care, it will be on the solid foundation of balanced budgets. >> this is a foreign policy debate. we had an economics debate the week before last. let's recenter the discussion in our remaining moments. mr. harper, back to you on climate change. >> they will never lay out rye si -- precisely where it is you want to lay out cuts. we're investing $1 billion a year, have been, for ten years on green energy. 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. it's already been rejected by an ndp government in alberta.
>> completely false. >> we're going to wrap up that topic and move on to our final long-form discussion. your party is opposed, publicly to making concessions on supplying aspects of ought/manufacturing in the context of the current trans-pacific partnership negotiations. does this mean under an ndp-led government canada would be locked out of some of the world's fastest growing markets? [ speaking in french ] >> translator: thank you very much. this week i had an opportunity to talk with the president of farmers and -- we must commit ourselves to defend in integral way our system, which is a very important dist system that make very bright. we have no excuses to explain
our system of supply and quebec and in on tontario. people are worried because three weeks prior to the election everything is allowed. >> mr. harper went public and said if you're in the auto the sector you should be worried about what he's promoting in the trans-pacific partnership. we've already lost jobs. 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 every 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. it was on the table to give them money to compensate what they were giving up in terms of
processing of fish and you know what? he broke his promise. >> translator: mr. trudeatrudea? what is your opinion about the matter? 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 the lack of transparency. he doesn't want to talk about what he's doing. and like mr. mull care is underlining, he's not fulfilling his promises as concerning international trade. we absolutely must have free trade agreements we know is good for jobs. and we need those investments. that's a reality, and we cannot pretend, either, that the world is 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 the junket he had promised in his red book to
finish the gsp. do you remember his red book. 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 champions. 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 while we