tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN October 5, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
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. katherine's family, the jews 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 2199, 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 around 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 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 disappoint, 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 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 interest 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 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
adapt 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 welcoming 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 health support for refugees. let's be very clear, we have health support for our refugees and immigrants. where we stop those benefits is when we have cases of refugee claims that have been turned down, rejected because they are clearly bogus. >> that's not true, mr. harper. you know that. >> in those cases, we provide health care better than the average canadian gets, and that's the responsible thing to do. >> translator: the time has passed. mr. mulcair -- >> it's important for canadians to remember when we've gotten it wrong in the past and why we have to learn from those experiences. in vancouver, a lot of those people were killed.
[ 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 from the region itself. and i can certainly tell you, from my visits to the refugee camps in jordan and debriefings there, we can't pretend there are no security risks. it's important that we do screening. those countries in the world
that responded to these headlines as these others would have by just opening the doors and doing no checking have rapidly regretted that, and are now trying to put in place the very kind of system that canada has been pursuing all along. it's a generous response, it's a responsible response. it is not based on the headlines. it is based on the right thing to do. [ applause ] [ speaking french ] [ speaking french ]
>> i want to bring mr. mulcair back in for our remaining time. >> translator: it is extremely difficult to hear a prime minister of a country who says that he's one of the first to help refugees, and say that the summary is that all the others want titles on the newspapers. >> 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 canadians 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 two things, it was more to do with the politics of fear and division than anything to do 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 ]
>> i'll get to c-51 in a moment. but 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 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 in 1970 and defended canadian 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 hay. >> that's not true. mr. mulcair -- >> you have to have the courage of your convictions. >> you said we could speak individually. i'd like to finish my sentence. >> 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 in quebec city and calgary. 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. >> mr. mulcair, 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 committed to bringing in protections to get that balance right, but mr. mulcair is playing on 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 not cisis, it 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 officials 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? is that your position? 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. this is not the standards we expect. immigrants, canadians, all of us here expect we would have an environment where people that
come here won't be guilty of trying to commit terrorist acts 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. when you don't like what someone does. you can't do that. oopgs >> 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 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. we've lovett that. >> mr. mulcair, i want to stop you there because this is a rapid reaction session. let's have a three-way debate on this topic. >> translator: who will start? >> i'm going to start. [ speaking french ] [ 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 responsibly and effectively. that's what we're committed to. >> mr. mulcair? [ speaking french ]
[ speaking french ] >> translator: this government does very general health services. but we want to -- >> you can't go out in the world and unite the range of countries that we have, and the ngos that we have, and get into that kind of debate. you need to concentrated 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. it's something we should be very proud of. >> 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 ice breaker or deep water port has been built at a time when you know the russians have 40 ice breakers and as many as another 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 on that basis. 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 higher arc kick research station, 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. that is not what you're doing enough of. we need to work with multilateral partners. obama just convened the arctic council in alaska last month and canada was almost practically absent from 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 canada ice arctic is the front
line against climate change. as the personal frost melts we're letting go of methane, 20 times more powerful that co2. it's a catastrophic climate driver. 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 an urgent, pressing issue that requires serious attention from a future 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. and so supportive to our agenda. this kind of attention was never paid to this part of the country 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 the cab set of canada. that's a real step forward and that's a sign that the inuit has arrived in our country. >> we've got a minute left. >> 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 quality 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. there's 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 2 rooms. how can a child do his homework? this is a social and economic crisis that is destroying the next generations. this is a state obligation. it reflects our deep canadian values. and i will tackle that when i become the prime minister. it will be an opportunity to tackle the housing problem for our first nations and inuit. >> you're all aware, i'm sure you've thought a lot about this, that the biggest foreign challenge policy of the moment surely is the aggressive and
unpredictable behavior of russia on the world stage. mr. trudeau, if you become prime minister, how will you deal with vladimir putin? >> i think there's no question that we have to recognize that russia has become, as you say, a destabilizing force around the world. he's destabilizing eastern europe with his unacceptable incursions in ukraine. in blocking the achievement of cease-fires and stabilizing and stopping the barrel bombings and war in syria. and he's being a provocative agent in the arctic, which requires canada to stand firm with our multilateral partners to push back with strong sanctions and as a strong part 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 in multilateral organizations 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. everybody knows, of course, when it came to ukraine, i made it very clear to him that this country will never tolerate or accept under any circumstances his on passion of ukrainian territory. this was a position we took with the baltic state s 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 in 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 invasion 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 are 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. let's like saying paul doer's on putin's list but it's not going to have much effect. the rest of the people on that list don't matter much. but these two count. they should be on canada's sanctions list. they're not, because mr. harper talks a good game about dealing with putin, but two of his closest allies, two of his closest buddies, are not being sanctioned. mr. harper is protecting them, not sanctioning them. >> it's not just in russia but in crimea and ukraine. if anybody is listed by all of our allies, they're of course listed by canada. mr. mulcair claimed in the previous debate that these two individuals are listed by everyone. they're not. they're not lists bit europeans. we want to make sure the sanctions are effective, that they punish russians and not canadians.jzmx we continue to review that particular -- those particular
cases. but no one should doubt, and i think the world has recognized that the ukrainians have recognized it, no country has responded more comprehensively to ukraine's needs, whether they be nonlethal military aid, training humanitarian, financial assistance. i've been to ukraine, met with president poroshenko. no country has stood with ukraine more than this government has. >> and canada will continue to stand with ukraine. when i chatted with president poroshenko in ottawa, along with freeland who has done an extraordinary job representing canada in a nonpolitical way, in -- to the people of ukraine and on this issue, 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.
right now, look around the world, 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? lease enter into a seven minute one-on-one with mr. harper on this topic. >> 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 -- his exact words -- that americans had to approve keystone xl. i know that keystone xl represents export of 40,000 canadian jobs because that's what mr. harper said. that's the numbers that the finance minister used. 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 from his and his government, 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. progressives in canada against c-51.
progressives in all of north america understand 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's good for our energy security, displacing foreign oil from countries that are quite frankly security risks to north america. and compared to the al tentatives it is by far the invest environmental solution in terms of moving product to market. so we have a strong case. i would 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 stand up for interests and we have to be very aggressive and 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 your closer on the whole thing, which is 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. old saying, 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, the navigable waters protection ability, 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 interface with our capacity to deal with other issues, because it's, quite frankly, all mr. harper and his ministers wanted to talk to the u.s. about, whether it's buy american, whether it's the auto sector and the tpp negotiations going on, whether it's just jobs and growth for canadians. the fact is that canadians are sitting around worried about their jobs because we have a prime minister that doesn't like barack obama. we need to do much better than that. and that personal relationship that mr. harper has had a difficulty creating, not just with the u.s. president who doesn't share his ideology, but with premiers across the country
and municipalities and a wide range of people, is hindering these relationships that mean jobs and growth. >> mr. 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 for what canada needs. i know that canada can get back to being a voice for reason. i want to put canada on track. i want us to be able to fight the flow of arms, fight the flow of money, fight the flow of
foreign fighters. but i also know that an independent canadian foreign policy means that fundamental canadian values, like fighting harder for peace than for war, is what i will bring to my tenure as prime minister of canada. >> you have a minute left. i want to give you the last word on this topic because you came in first. mr. harper, please. >> we have congratulated our allies on working to get a deal with the iranian regime. the proof of that will obviously be in the implementation of that deal. we will believe iran's words and not its actions. i think our allies will take a very similar position. but look, 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. we won't single out the jewish state for attack and criticism. we recognize unequivocally the right of israel to be a jewish state and to defend itself. [ applause ] >> last word to mr. trudeau. >> the issue of israel where we most disagree as liberals with mr. harper is he has made israel a domestic political football when all three of us support israel and any canadian government will. but on the question of -- [ applause ] -- of the u.s. relationship. what we need to make sure is that we continue to engage as a robust member of the coalition fighting to defeat isis. there are many countries that don't have a direct combat role and canada has proven time and time again that we can contribute. and for our closest friend and allies in the u.s. to relaunch u.n. peacekeeping today and not have canada stepping up to say yes this is a canadian thing that we can do well and we will support is yet another missed
opportunity to have that positive relationship that ultimately means more jobs and more growth for canadians. >> thank you, gentlemen. we'll move on to our next topic. in a matter of weeks we know world leaders will gather in paris to negotiate a new global climate change agreement. mr. trudeau, liberal and conservative governments alike have failed to meet their international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. why should canadians believe that your government will be any different? >> translator: we recognize that the challenge that people are expecting us to face as a government is to understand that the environment and the economy go together. we can't separate them anymore. in fact, when we enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this harms our relationships with the united states, our relationships all over the world.
so what the liberal party is saying, what i say now is let's put aside this political game to give optimistic targets without having a plan to implement them. what we are choosing to do is to invest very much to reduce emissions. we're talking $20 billion over ten years of the investment on public transportations. we're talking $20 billion on -- over ten years for sustainable infrastructure to reduce our impact on greenhouse gas emissions and we are going to invest billions of dollars to develop green and clean energy and we're going to do that with the provinces because the reality is within the ten years of mr. harper the provinces were alone and four provinces did carbon pricing and we must have a federal government to support
them and to present a united front in a few months in paris to show that canada is going back to the good way. >> translator: thank you mr. trudeau. i can say for the first time in history that canada has had economic growth, reducing at the same time greenhouse gas emissions. we've had economic growth but we've also had a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. as pertains to the conference coming up in paris, when we came to office a decade ago we took a position that was considered very radical, opposed by the other parties and many in the international community. we said that an effective international protocol had to include targets for all major emitters. the chinese and americans who were not a part of the previous protocol are now committed to moving forward with that and i am very optimistic. we've established targets very
similar to our major partners, we're working with the united states and others in the united states on regulatory systems on greenhouse gas emissions and i am very optimistic we will reach a historic accord in paris this year. >> translator: you know, he says that. he talks like that all the time as if canada was a leader in matters of environment. [ laughdu] i think he's even starting to believe himself. the reality is that everybody knows that mr. harper has not understood the very basic pxç 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 homework in environment. 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 environment and economy go together. [ applause ] >> translator: the first thing we have for the first time is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. you must understand that the record mr. trudeau is talking about is from the previous
government that was the first one to increase greenhouse gas emissions. >> greenhouse gas emissions have gone down under our government. under the previous government, they established the toughest standards in the world and missed them by the most of any single country. they were 30% over their targets and when we got to office they didn't have a single plan to achieve anything. >> that's not true. you know that's not forward. >> we have moved forward on regulatory matters and the transportation sector and electricity sector. we'll continue to move forward. we have a real plan, we're taking actions and we're doing that without opposing carbon taxes on the canadian population. [ applause ] >> translator: what you don't recognize is that they have already 86 of our economy they have they have announced a price on carbon. despite your inactivity in reducing the greenhouse effects and you have put targets that
would not be met, that's why we'll put money in front instead of anything else. you have four different provinces take the leadership which columbia has a carbon tax well done. your province has done the same thing, ontario and quebec will have a reduced carbon. we have real leadership from the provinces that wait 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 -- >> translator: we 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 that without imposing taxes on canadian consumers. >> mr. harper, you do see the irony of standing here in toronto and trying to tell people in ontario that you somehow supported and aided the closing down of the coal-fire plants here in ontario. you and your government fought tooth and nail against the ontario government as it was demonstrating that it could reduce its emissions by the most significant degree of any jurisdiction in the country by
making a simple policy decision that you were no part of and even blocking and ridiculing from your gang in ottawa and then now taking credit for it. >> that's just factually untrue. >> mr. harper, these people know better than what you're trying to say. >> we have put in place at the national level a binding system of regulation in collaboration not just with the province of ontario but nova scotia, alberta, saskatchewan, all of the provinces that use coal-fired electricity. it's an example of collaboration. we're eliminating coal-fired electricity. guess what? talk about the united states. emissions from their coal-fired electricity sector are bigger than emissions from the entire canadian economy. we're leading the world on this sector. >> translator: thank you, mr. harper. please, mr. mulcair, please get involved in the conversation. >> translator: in fact, you know that mr. harper is totally right when he says that the liberals used their kyoto signature as a pr deal.
and he's right when he said that the liberal government had the worst record, except for kazakhstan. that doesn't mean that we have to continue not to do anything. >> those figures are published. every year i was the minister of the environment in quebec, i was able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in quebec. we had a clear plan. ndp has a clear plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in canada. we'll base ourselves largely on the successful cap-and-trade model we use in canada and the u.s. to reduce so-2 emissions causing acid rain. it works. but if provinces have been doing something else that also works, we won't be imposing the detail of the means to get there. what we'll be talking about is the combined obligation of result. no more excuses possible. no more fake stuff from the liberals. no more pretending -- >> $40 billion in infrastructure isn't fake, mr. mulcair. >> the ndp will get it done,
that track record. these will be hard caps, real limits and they will be enforced. >> mr. mulcair is making the kinds of announcements that aren't followed up by any real plan to achieve this. because mr. mulcair has taken the decision that what he has to do at all costs is balance mr. harper's budget. he cannot make the kind of investments the liberal party is choosing to make in the kinds of things that canada needs right now because, yes, we have chosen to run three modest deficits to balance the budget by 2019 because the time to invest is now, the time to take action on climate change is now. these are the choices we've made that you, quite frankly, cannot make. and even as you announced with tremendous strength and pomp your -- >> only pomp to you. [ laughter ] >> we have your friend and ally,
npd premier of alberta, who said that, you know what? she's not so crazy about your approach on climate change reductions. but you can't even get an ndp premier to endorse your environmental plan, you know you're in real trouble mr. mulcair. >> alberta is with one mind with us on the obligation of result. but this is about sustainable development, and when you say your only way of governing is to dump a massive economic debt on the backs of future generations, you're right, we strongly disagree with you. mr. harper has left a huge ecological debt on the backs of future generations and the last time the liberals were in power with their 24% cut to social and health transfers, that left a social debt on the back of future generations. the ndp has the best track record of any party in canada for balanced budgets. when we took over saskatchewan -- oh, you're right, i forgot there was one exception but it turned out bob ray was a liberal. [ laughter and applause ]
tommy douglas took over saskatchewan that the liberals left in bankruptcy, ran 17 consecutive balanced budgets in a row, and brought there free universal public medical care. we bring in $15 a day quality child care it won't be on the backs of future generations. it will be on the basis of a solid foundation of balanced budgets. >> this is a foreign policy debate. we had an economics debate the week before last, so let's recenter discussion in our remaining moments. mr. harper, back to you -- >> very briefly. >> -- on climate change. >> these parties will never lay out precisely where they intend to reduce emissions. the advantage of proceeding sector by sector is you know what you'll do and you're able to make sure you minimize the cost on jobs in the canadian economy. we're investing a billion dollars a year on green energy and energy efficiency. the only real policies ever proposed by either of these parties are effectively carbon taxes where we would hit
consumers, and carbon taxes are not about reducing emissions, they're about raising revenue for the government. mr. trudeau is right. mr. mulcair's plan has already been rejected by an ndp government. alberta, that tells you where it's going to fall. >> not true. >> we'll wrap up that topic and move on to our final long form discussion. mr. mulcair, your party is opposed on making concession in supply management and aspects of auto manufacturing in the context of the current transpacific partnership negotiations. does this mean under an ndp led government canada would be locked out of the world's fastest-growing markets? >> translator: thank you very much. well, this week i had the opportunity to talk with the president of farmers, and we must commit ourselves to defend
our system which is a very important system that makes us very bright. we have no excuses to explain our system of supply in quebec and ontario. people are very worried because they know that three weeks prior to the election everything is allowed. >> mr. harper went public and said if you're in the auto sector you should be worried about what he's negotiating in the transpacific partnership. on mr. harper's watch we've lost 400,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs. there are 80,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs in the auto sector. what's on the table? when president obama wanted to discuss this this week, this is how good the relationship is, he phoned the president of mexico. we were frozen out. i'm quite concerned about what's being left on the table by the conservatives, and our dairy farmers have everybody right to be concerned. i think supply management is on
the table. and mr. harper doesn't keep his word on these things. ask anybody in newfoundland, labrador, when he got their approval on the european trade deal it was on a promise to give them money to compensate what they were giving up in terms of processing of fish and he broke his promise. >> translator: mr. trudeau, what is your opinion about the matter? >> translator: well, it's certain that we could have signed many agreements internationally without endangering our farming system but the reality is that the gentleman is showing a total lack of transparency. he doesn't want to talk about what he's doing, and like mr. mulcair is underlining, he's not fulfilling his promises in many issues as to promises concerning international trade. we absolutely must have free trade agreements. we know it's good for jobs and we need those investments. that's a reality and we cannot
we tend either that the world is a free trade world as to agriculture. we have a system that works, we signed very important agreements without putting ourselves in danger, but we need to attract foreign investment. we need to create jobs here in canada. you know that the sectors -- the manufacturing sectors and exporting sectors pay higher salaries to canadians from the middle-class and international trade is essential for canada. mr. harper does like to talk about his support and the agreements he signed, but our exports had the worst growth rate under his government that we have had since the second world war. he hasn't performed in that sense, and i want to say that when we see the record of liberals in that matter,
remember that it was promised in the red book to finish the gst. do are you remember his red book? he had torn the free trade agreement of north america and of course he didn't do anything about it. that's why we must be very careful before signing because once that is signed it's very difficult to touch. there are aspects as to the state, as to protecting health. chapter 11 is a true challenge and mr. trudeau said that he agreed with europe with this nafta matter. it went to the house of commons. mr. harper has an agreement with europe and there are aspects like investments, for example, that concern us and concern other countries in europe so
even if he announced 12 times that he's going to make an agreement, there isn't one yet. we can't pretend that we are growing is while we are slowing down. i will never accept as to crucial environment or health or other matters to be non-defined, to have international experts decide what i have the right to decide for the public. that's a basic canadian value, to keep the authority of the state, to take one's own decisions in the interest of the public. >> translator: you know, mr. mulcair is trying to change the ndp to improve his image. the reality is that there are enormous difficulties still to understand that we need free trade agreements to create a better future for our jobs and our economy. the ndp does not support any free trade agreement that might
have been signed in the last few years. oh, no, there is one, the one with jordan. that's the only one he accepted. the reality is that this is a party that never understood to what extent it is important to attract investments to canada. to have markets for exports to be involved, to be engaged with growing economies in asia. we must be involved and, yes, the liberal party believes very n international agreements. we believe it's essential for economic growth to give jobs to canadians and that is why we agreed with the canada/europe agreement, but mr. harper has not performed yet. we are not yet anywhere with china and australia. we're just at the beginning with india, in spite of the rapprochement that mr. harper tried to do recently with the
prime minister and the united states. we are not yet with international free trade. but there is an issue there whereby mr. mulcair was to enter into an exchange with the united states that this is bulk water exports. >> he proposed we exported bulk water. you compared it to forestry. mr. mulcair -- >> that's false, justin. >> you were willing to sell our water to the united states. >> please jump in, mr. mulcair. an accusation has been made. we'd like you to respond. >> first of all, with regard to trade deal, that was trade deal with korea that was backed by the ndp, so mr. trudeau the inventing facts once again. when i was a minister we had lots of debates, but the important thing to look at is what we decided. bulk water exports would have been a terrible idea, especially under the north american free trade agreement and
proportionality clause so we shut the door and locked it tight. >> we have a video of you -- >> mr. trudeau doesn't understand debates because he's used to having people write his lines for him. but with regard to korea, it's a representation -- >> we don't need that from mr. harper, we don't need that from you, mr. mulcair. we are looking for an even playing field. we are looking for trade agreements with countries that share our values. whether it's the protection of protection of workers' right, this is an even playing field. this can be about reciprocity. but what we won't do is what mr. harper's done is sign deals with countries like honduras who after a coup mr. harper ran the to make a deal with honduras. that's a country that doesn't respect workers' rights or human rights, and we shouldn't put them on an even playing field with us because we're communicating we find that's okay. same thing with our trade deal with colombia. there are times when you have to stand up and say canadians expect their government to reflect their values when they're putting their name on a trade agreement and mr. harper has consistently failed to show
respect for those fundamental canadian values. >> mr. mulcair, i'll go to mr. harper. >> in the 21th century, the global economy, the retention of good-paying jobs will depend on having privileged trade access to the major economies of the world we've been able to achieve deals in this continent with europe and now with the republic of korea, we're working in the asia-pacific region. every time we have done so in making sure, we also advance the interest of our automobile sector, protect the interest of supply management, advance the interest of canadian agriculture. there's always a reason to walk away from the table. there's always a reason to be against agreements. these parties opposed the original canada/u.s. agreement, opposed nafta, some of them oppose europe, but we have been able to advance the interests of the canadian economy. we will only sign a deal if it's at the interest of the canadian economy but we'll sit at the table and advance and
defend canadian interest. >> mr. harper talks about how many deals he's signed over the past years, what a great job he's done reaching out around the world but canada has the worst rate of export growth -- sorry, the prime minister, this prime minister, has the worst rate of export growth of any prime minister since world war ii. so if this is your best effort, mr. harper, we have to worry about what will happen if you get reelected because the fact of the matter is, canada needs to engage positively on the world stage and our diplomacy, our cultural exchanges, our engagement in humanitarian efforts, our climate change responsibilities all feed into how we are able to engage in the kinds of trade deals that will bring good jobs to canadians. that will create a brighter future for people because we know export intensive industries are 50% higher wages than non-exporting industries. >> let me go to mr. harper and then to mr. mulcair. >> look, nay decade of global
economic instability we've increased our exports 50%. >> always someone else's fault. >> we're living in an era that's been very difficult where canada's performance is the best among the g-7. we need to continue that by taking forward-looking actions. that includes the steps we've taken to conclude trade deals in this continent and europe and also work to get trade deals in the area pacific region and you don't get those deals by coming up with a million reasons why you're against them before you get to the table and why you should walk away once you're there. we're there. we've had a successful record of making sure we defend the broad interests of the canadian economy. open up our markets, that's what we'll continue to do. >> mr. harper -- >> translator: they have asked me to ask you a question, it's the president of the union of agriculture. if you will defend wholly a
system of management -- supply management and all the negotiations we have always defended the supply management and the negotiation we defend the agriculture when they were outside of the system and we defend the interest of all the sectors and the engagement is to conclude an agreement that is to the interest of the all communities of canadians. >> this is about how we build a stronger and brighter future for us all. the liberal party has put forward propositions on deficits to invest in our communities and our infrastructure. but we also understand that trade and creating good jobs is at the heart of what every canadian prime minister needs to do. we are too big a country with too few people to be able to do it all on our own. we need trade with the u.s., with countries around the world
to actually grow our economy to create good jobs for canadians. and the fact that mr. harper hasn't been able to get it done on the big file and mr. mulcair continues to obstruct and deny the importance of trade, means that the choice is clear in this election to pick the liberal party of canada. >> in fact, mr. trudeau, 99% of the free trade access of this country has been created by conservative governments. what we always get from the liberal party is platitudes on trade but you don't the vision and determination to sit at the table and make the tough decisions to get the deal. that's what we're doing. >> very brief final by mr. mulcair. >> thank you. the question to ask is, who do you want representing canada at the climate change conference in paris in december? who do you want sitting across from angela merkel as we try to get a deal that suits all of our purposes? who represents canadian values on all of the issues we're discussing tonight? for 150 years we've been told we
have no choice but to alternate between the sponsorship scandal in the liberals and the senate scandal and the conservatives. this time around there's a real choice of an ndp government, a progressive forward looking choice for canada and canadians' values. >> translator: thank you, mr. mulcair. ladies and gentlemen, we have arrived to the end of our debate. [ applause ] [ applause ] all of us here hope this debate has helped inform the vote that you, the viewing
audience, everyone here in this auditorium will cast in three weeks's time. let's be sure all of us, regardless of our views, our party, to head to the polls to vote. for those of you watching online right now -- our post-debate panel begins co-hosted by facebook canada and the globe and mail. >> translator: thank you for having followed us. >> thank you for watching the debates on canada's foreign policy. good evening. as the supreme court starts new term, c-span debuts landmark cases historic supreme court decisions. we leak at the real story behind the famous marbury versus madison case, dealing with john
adams, the new president, jefferson and newly appointed chief justice, john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in his famous decision of marbury versus madison. >> marbury versus madison probably the famous case this court decided. >> joining the discussion, akhil reed amar and cliff sloane. landmark cases exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings revealing life and times of the people, plaintiffs. tonight, 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, c-span radio. for background on each case, while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping c-span.org/landmarkcases.
>> tonight, on "the communicators" chip pickering ceo of comptell discusses net neutrality and issues involving broadband and television. interviewed by senior ed core at communications daily. >> as the legacy telephone companies transitions from copper and something called tdium, old technology. >> circuit switch. >> to i.p., new networks how do we make sure public safety, 911, how do we make sure competition ha has taken root in the marketplace continues and thrives? how do we make sure that our critical institutions, schools, libraries, hospitals, first responders, the services that they depend on those networks, how do they go into the next technology, this transition, with everything being sustained
and improved? i.p. is what we all want, it's more efficient, gives better service. it lowers the prices. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. next, hearing on u.s. cybersecurity threats and policy. the director of national intelligence, james clapper, national security agency director, admiral michael rogers and defense secretary robert nu. work testified before the senate arms services committee last week. today >> good morning. >> the committee meets today tor receive testimony from deputy secretary of defense robert work, director of national intelligence james clap somewhered amilitia mike rogers. the commander of the u.s. centra
cybercommand. director of the national , security agency and chief of thi central security service. we thank eve of theeari witnessa for service and appearing before committee. we meet at a critical time for the defense of our nation from cyberattacks. inow just the t past year, we a know the united states has been attacked by cyberspace in ss cyberspace by iran, north korea, china, russia. since our last cyber hearing in march the attacks increased disrupting our net works across the government and private sector and compromising national security information.f recent attacks against the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, the office of personnel ples management are just the latest examples of the growing boldnesf of our adversaries and their desire to push limits of acceptable behavior in cyberspace. new intrusions and breaches and hacks are growing daily. trends are getting worse.l not it seems the administration has
not mounted an adequate response. they say they will, quote, respond at time and manner of our choosing, unquote. but then either take no action r or pursue largely symbolic responses that have zero impact on our adversary's behavior. not surprisingly, the attacks continue. our adversaries steal, delete, manipulate data at will, gainino competitive economic edge in improving military capability. demonstrate their own means to e attack our critical ime and infrastructure. and they do all of this at a thr time and manner of their d what choosing. more and t whimore, they're ev leaving behind what admiral shi rogers referred to as, question, cyber fingerprints showing they feel confident they can attack e us with impunity and without c significant consequence. consider the recent case with china. after much hand wringing, it appears that president will not impotion sanctions in response to china's efforts to steal
intellectual property, pillage the designs of our critical weapons systems and wage k's economic espionage against u.s. companies. instead, last week's state visit for the president of china simply amounted to more vague commitments not to conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabledh theft of intellectual property.r what's worse, the white house of has chosen to reward china wit diplomatic discussions of establishing norms of behavior u favorable to china and russia. any international agreed upon rules of the road in cyberspace must recognize the right of ea self-defense contained in ts article 51 of the u.n. charter c with meaningful human rights and intellectual property rights whe protects. the administration should not ek concede this point to autocratic regimes that seek to dissort core principles of the international order to our detriment. make no pamistake, we're not winning the fight in cyberspace. our adversaries view our
response to mill licious cyberactivity as timid and te ineffectual. the problem is lackr of deterrence. ased admiral rogers testified, the consequences of continued its. cyberattacks against us outweigh the benefit. until this happens, the attacksg will continue and our national security interests will suffer. establishing cyber respond to cl the national security in scal cyberspace. that is what the congress required in the fiscal year 2014 national defense authorization r act. that strategy is now a over a yr late and counting. while the department of defense's 2015 cyberstrategy is a big immovement over previous efforts it does not integrate the ways and means to deter attacks in cyberspace.
thtablishing a cyberdeterrence requires robust capabilities offensive and defensive that can pose a credible threat to our adversaries the goal of congress and this committee remains actively engaged.de in significant progress has been ca made ovendr the past few years d n. developing cyberforce. that force will include a mix os professionals trained to defend the nation against cyberattacks to support the geographic combatant commands in meeting objectives and defend dod network. this is good. the vast majority of the d.o.d.h resources gone toward shoring u sooi cyber defenses. deter attacks, fight and win ina cyberspace.o not policy indecisions should knot become an impediment to capability development. we develop weapons so as we do
not have. and yet in the cyber domain ased amilitia admiral rogers ide postified we've got to broaden capabilities to provide policymakers and operational commanders andth a broader rang of options.offens we must invest more in the win offensive capabilities that our cybermission teams need to win on the cyber battle feel. fiscal year 2016 seeks to ot address this challenge in a number of ways including pilot program to provide the commander of cyber command with limited, rapidde acquisition authorities. we know the defense department is in the process of assessing s whether the existing structure adequately addresses mission of cyberwarfare and whether to elevate cyber command to a ate n unified command.d views there are worthwhile arguments e on both sides of the debate. a look forward to hearing
admiral roger's view and how cyber command might enhance thes posture. i look forward to hearing from witnesses what, if any, progress has been made on addressing d disagreements within thee interagency interagency on the a delegation and exercise of g beo authority to use fo cybercapabilities. i thank the witnesses again for appearing before the committee. i look forward to their testimony. senator reid? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and let me commend you for scheduling this important hearing. it's important to discuss with our witnesses, especially in light of the cyberagreements announced last friday between president obama and the president of china. i want to thank director mmand clapper, deputy secretary work . and cyber commander admiral wi rogers for his work today and service to the nation. thank you very much. let me start with the cyberagreements with china. the apparent commitment by chinl stealing u.s. intellectual ussin property for their a economic gn is notable, and i expect we will have a robust discussion reputay
continue to decline if this does not stop, which ultimately will have it immensely negative impact on our relationship with china. i would also emphasize how important it is to embrace these norms, which include refraining from the tax on the other nations critical infrastructure. and that includes whether we can go to a full unified command and whether the commander of command to a full unified cyberc command and whether to sustain the current call the command. i understand the department may be nearing a recommendation to d the president that the next unified command plan elevate cybercommand to a unified command. the committee in the past has questioned whether cybercommand is mature enough to warrant
elevation to a unified command and whether the dual hat si arrangement should continue when a decision is made to elevate the command. put simply, if cybercommand is s so reliant on nsa that common leadership is still necessary, the command ready to stand on its own as a unified combatant command? this is an a issue that senator mccain has drawn attention to, and i think it's manage that is very critical with going forward for this committee. directly related to that c question of the maturity of t cybercommand is theh military l cybermission units that the department only began fielding over the past two years. commendably, the department is meeting its schedule with e trained personnel. but by its own admission the liuipments, tools and capabilities of these forces min remain limited. indeed, the committees for nse proposed fy 2016 defense authorization act that designate executive agents to build a so-called unified platform. persistent training environmente and command and control systemse that are necessary for these
forces to operate effectively.ut it will take a number of years to build these capabilities.y ba we are behind in developing these military capabilities for car cyberforces because the defense department was persuaded that the systems and capabilities that nsa already se has would be adequate and appropriate for use by cybercommand.is i this is an important example ofn an assumed critical dependency on nsa and an assumed out commonality between intelligence operations and military operations in cyberspace that in some cases has turned out to be inaccurate. for a number of years this ulatn committee has been urging the executive branch to deter malicious actions in cyberspacel and to articulate a strategy for implementing them. some believe that retaliation ia kind in cyberspace is a necessary and effective as m component of such strategy.gues i look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses on this matter. as my colleagues and eyewitnesses are well aware, the senate went into recess for the august break having reached an
agreement for bringing the cyberinformation sharing bill tf the floor for debate. i know the chairman is in full agreement on the need to debate, that passed this legislation this year in the interest of national security, and so am i.r we must also recognize that the defense department and the intelligence community are not operating alone to protect partt america's cyberinfrastructure. a most notably, rely on the department of homeland securityt for the protection of america's critical infrastructure, the use of overseas contingency operations to avoid the control does nothing to avoid the effects of sequestration. this is yet another argument ofs why we need aehyç comprehensive solution tort about the problemf sequestration.t finally, it important to hear on encryption. businesses fearful of losing hi businesses at home are encrypting services for which even the companies themselves g have no capability to unlock.
fbi director comey has given multiple speeches that they will be going dark with serious consequences for public safety and national security.d i imon these and other questions, tn gentlemen are, vitally important and ior, look forward to your testimony. >> i thank the witnesses. director clapper, i have tried to impress on members of this committee to show deference to old age. so we would like to begin with you. >> senator mccain, ranking member reed, ranking members of the committee, when i testified on the intelligence committee's worldwide threat at the end of february, cyberthreats again led our annual threat report for the third queer in a row. we're here today to respond to the several requests in your invitation letter. and i will focus on an overview of cyberthreats briefly that face our nation and their attendant national security implications. and secretary work, admiral rogers will follow as well. we will, as you understand, perhaps run into some classified aspects we won't be able to discuss as fully and as open ine
a televised hearing. i do want to take note of and e thank the members of the yommittee who are engaged on this issue and have spoken to it publicly as the two of you just have. so by way of overview, cyberthreats to the u.s. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication, and severity of impact. although we must be prepared for large armageddon scale strike that would debilitate the entirr infrastructure, that is not we believe the most likely scenario. our primary concern now is low to moderate level cyberattacks from a variety of sources which will continue and probably expand. this imposes increasing costs t. our business, to u.s. economic competitiveness and to national security. because of our heavy dependence on the internet, nearly all comn information technology technologies and i.t.d it netwo
and systems will be perpetuallyr at risk. these weaknesses provide an array of possibilities for nefarious activity by cyberactors including remote ree hack instructions, supply chaine compromisedo insert hardware or software, malicious action by insiders and simple human mistakes by system users. these cyberthreats come from a range of actors including nation t states, which fall into two higy broad categories. those with highly sophisticated cyberprograms, most notably cassia and china are peer competitors. and those w/álesser capabilities but more nefarious intent such as iran and north korea, but who are also much more aggressive and unpredictable. then there are nonnation state entities, criminals motivated by profit, hackers or extremists motivated by ideology. profit-motivated cybercriminals
rely on loosely net worked often marketplaces loosely networked online cyber marketplaces referred to as the cyber under cyberunderground or dark web that provide a form for the t merchandising of illicit tools,c service and esinfrastructure, ao stolen personal information and financial datarm. the most significant financial thbercriminal threats to u.s. entities and our international partners come from a relativelyf small subset of act, to facilitators and criminal forums. and terrorist groups will continue to experiment with hacking, which could serve as the foundation for developing da more advanced capabilities. cyberespionage, criminal and terrorist entities all undermine data confidentiality.ta del denial of service operations and data deletion attacks undermine availability. futur and in the future, i believe t we'll see more cyberoperations thatin will change or manipulat electronic information to compromise its integrity. in other words, compromise its
accuracy and liability, instead in dleegt it or disrupting access tteo it. as illustrated so dramatically with the opm breaches, risks ard inherent when foreign intelligence agenciesen obtain access to an individual's identity information, of course a problem that the department of defense has encountered. foreign intelligence agency or e nonstate entities could target the individual, family workers, coworkers and neighbors using an variety of physical and electr electronic methods for extortion or recruiting purposes. and speaking of the opm breaches, let me say a couple of words about attribution. it is not a simple process.t me it involves at least three not related but distinct determi determinations, the geographic origin, the identity of the actual perpetrator doing the key strokes, and the opm responsibility for directing the act. in the case of opm, we have differing degrees of confidence in our assessment of the actual responsibility for each of these three elements. such malicious cyberactivity
will continue and probably m accelerate until weal establisht andin demonstrate the capabilitu tos deter malicious state sponsored activity. reack credible deterrent depends on norms of cyberbehavior by the international community. so in summary, the cyberthreats toed, u.s. and economic securi have been increasing and diverse, sophisticated and harmful. there are a variety of entities that work the cyberproblem. law enforcement intelligence and sector specific agencies like treasury and energy. and every day each of these vidl centers andly entities get bett at what they do individually. i believe now we've reached the point where we think it's time to knit together all the intelligence these separate activities need to defend our ae networks because while these we entities may be defending tellig differenten networks, they're ur often defending against the sams threats. that's one reasoney the preside directed me to form a small ig center to integrate cyberthreate