tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 7, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
i need to clean up the beach. if there is one homeless veteran, that is one too many. >> that will be on your watch? >> yes. mike: hello, heather. >> thank you for your extraordinary leadership. [indiscernible] scheduling was a pillar we talked about. curious as to -- secretary mcdonald: scheduling is a really big issue.
we have taken a two track approach. one track is to put in fixes to our current system knowing that is not the solution. my first trip to phoenix, i sat down at the computer screen and worked the scheduling system myself. it really is a green screen. like we have to make things simpler for veterans, we have to make things simpler for our employees. putting fixes into the system is the fastest approach. we are going for an off the shelf system you are going to implement as quickly as possible. we are going to start putting this in place. it will take some time to do it. the third thing we have to do is make sure our people are trained. this is why i am eager to have a simplified system. while there have been things
that have gone wrong and we are holding people accountable for those things, for example, there was a person who manipulated data in georgia who was indicted two weeks ago. as times goes on, these measures of accountability will come out. i believe we have to make things simpler. there are veterans today complaining about our execution of the choice act. there are seven different ways of getting it outside. these laws get layered on top of each other. that is incredibly complex for the employee to understand. we need to simplify that and congress has asked me and we are suggesting we simplify that one system. what i'm looking for is we have to make that scheduling system simpler.
we have a nap now -- an app now and we just have to make it easier. mike: when you went on meet the press in february, chuck todd asked you about how many people have been held accountable of the problems and he said none hundred people had been fired since i became secretary and two weeks later, few people lost jobs with va in scandal. has there been enough accountability? secretary mcdonald: the number now is over 1400. peoples that have been terminated. part of this is a layered approach. there is disciplinary action the fbi takes, well over 100 people be investigated now for scheduling issues.
as those investigations come out , the fbi investigation takes priority. then you will hear about the things happening but for all of our critics, accountability and organization is more than firing people. what we have to do is make sure there is a sustainable system in place so people are rewarded when they do well, held accountable when they don't do well. we are providing feedback. i sat down with the chairman of our house committee and took them through the relative performance readings over 2014 of the the a -- va top employees. what i showed him was number one, nobody in veterans health administration is getting a performance bonus for 2014. nobody is rated outstanding. how can you be rated outstanding if your secretary has to resign? we have the best distribution
and government of those ratings from top to bottom and i would argue the best distribution compared to private actor. -- private sector. accountability is a lot more than just firing people and accountability is also the fact that when i came in, i found the doctors salaries were 20% below the market so we raised the salaries. accountability has to be more holistic than firing people. mike: my colleague has a question. a lot of people still dissatisfied. i got a 10 page document. what facility are you still most concerned about? secretary mcdonald: you have to understand the political nature of the concerned veterans of
america. i met with pete many times. i know people that fund his organization. we are not in favor of advertising the va. one of my biggest concerns, i met with sylvia burwell on this recently, is how do we inform the doctors we send veterans to in the private sector to always ask the question "have you served in the military?" if i'm sending a veteran to the private sector and that dr. does not know the military culture, that could be dangerous for the veteran. i have to make sure those people are informed. the idea of advertising the va -- privatizing the va. it we didn't train 70% of the doctors in the country, who would?
that is not in their proposal. you have to look at this rationally from the standpoint of the veteran and those veterans who have rest of their lives for our country and what we owed them. mike: let me ask you, what is the most legitimate for many criticism of the va? secretary mcdonald: i think the criticism is of me, not the va. i take responsibility. i think the criticism is i'm not moving fast enough. but there is one veteran without a roof over their head tonight, it is my fault. if there is one better without the disability claim handled today, it is my fault. the first day, you have four answers to any situations. yes sir, no sir, i don't understand. i tried that answer a lot.
but i was a slow learner. the fourth is no excuse, sir. anytime a veteran is not getting the care they need, it is my problem. mike: my colleague has a question. >> i wanted to ask you -- [inaudible] secretary mcdonald: one of the things i noticed when i joined the va is i did not think we were embracing the goodwill of the american people enough, including contractors. i found that one of my first
trips was to boston. i went to harvard medical school . i also went to boston to market our facilities. there, i visited an organization called home base. home base is a wonderful organization. i was told by those who run it and buy a dear friend who owns the new york mets that we were seeing major league baseball's contribution to veterans as competition. rather than as complementary. i wanted to make sure we saw it as complementary. we have established a strategy. it is all about strategic partnerships. we hired a guy from the private sector. he was the mayor of flint, michigan at the age of 28. he has run several companies. he has come in to help us set up these partnerships.
his name is matthew collier. anybody who wants to work with the va, we want you to. we know we can speed up the process if we have all of the help everyone can give. there is also the ethical issue i mentioned. home base can treat the 15% of veterans with this honorable discharges. we cannot. we believe in strategic partnerships. mike: we have a question here. thank you. please just say who you are. >> i work for the congresswoman. i will -- what are the conversation is focused on
health care, which is understandable given the immediate crisis. homelessness i know is it can turn of yours. you were in los angeles at the opening of the blue butterfly village. what other steps are you taking to alleviate that concern, that crisis? secretary mcdonald: we have been working very hard on the woman aiding veteran homelessness. eliminating -- eliminating veteran homelessness. one of the things i discovered when i came in the job as there were a lot of unfinished business. we have a lawsuit going on in los angeles for overclocked or years that paralyzed us. -- four four years. i had to solve that lawsuit. working with partners, people i knew, we created an agreement.
we are all working together as a community. we in the federal government cannot do it by ourselves. partnership is important and we need to get all levels of government working together. we need to the local mayors, governors to help us. every time i go to the city, i meet with the mayors, the governors, and we make sure we have a plan. one of the biggest issues we face is getting the landlords to rent for the voucher amount. what we do is the mayor and i, we have a mayors challenge. we get all of the landlords and a room and talk to them about how this is good business to
rent to that event -- to veterans. we surround the veteran with care, whether it is mental health care, medical care, addiction. we surround them with peace workers so the veteran becomes a good reintegration in the community. hello, leo. >> beside you are not a political person and you mentioned your outreach efforts to congress. do you feel you underestimated the political aspects of this job? we still see plenty of anger and conflict between va and congress
in recent months. do you feel you need to recalibrate that relationship? do you feel there is warroad to grow? -- more room to grow? secretary mcdonald: there is unanimity around veterans issues. arguably, we work congress did recently to give me the financial bucks ability to -- flexibility to use, money set aside for committee care was a good thing. i have said many times that we would government runs is not like a business. i have over 17 line items of object -- budget. in this case, we needed $3 billion to pay for care in the community that was a budget up to a video dollars -- that was a budget up to $10 billion. we have given the veterans choice. they all have choice. i don't have choice in moving the money so i have to keep going back to congress every time, asking permission.
it gives them another opportunity to talk about mismanagement. >> that aspect, that transfer was a four-month fight with some nasty accusations against you. secretary mcdonald: i will take the accusations as long as we get the job done. i am not a politician, i am not running for anything most of the purpose is to care for veterans. i think what you will see as over time, congress will work with me to run this more like a business. this was what they asked for. they said run like a business and i'm trying to do that but i need laws passed. mike: the resistance to the destruction and the business
oriented approach has also come from the hill. secretary mcdonald: i probably get five letters a day from members of congress about you should do this, that. they are all about giving additional benefits. no member has written me about taking away a benefit. they pass the loss to give benefits, the appropriate the money to pay for those. when you have a mismatch there, guess it gets caught in the middle and blamed? i have to work with members of congress and there is tremendous unanimity. we have to work together against the common objective. mike: when you explain that, they say what? secretary mcdonald: most of them agree. if you watch my hearing, there are pretty good goes as explanations of what is going on. the financial flexibility,
generally in the appropriations committee, members have agreed. we will see. mike: when you are at procter & gamble, you emphasized value-based leadership. i favorite is you say companies must do well to do good and must do good to do well. explain. secretary mcdonald: playing on the private sector in particular, the purpose of the proctor and gamble company is to improve lies. the employees are inspired by that purpose. -- improve lives. you cannot create products that improve lives and trash the environment at the same time. one of the things i was most proud of is the clinton global initiative a few years ago, i made the commitment for procter & gamble but by 2020, we would
save one life an hour by providing clean drinking water. we invented a chemistry that allows us to clinton leaders of water in developing countries in -- clean 10 liters of water in developing countries in 20 minutes. they walk 10 kilometers a day to get water and firewood. it is a huge issue. over 2000 children die a day from drinking unclean water. if you have a purpose for the company of improving lives, you have to make that purpose pervasive in the country. it has to be a part of your philanthropy and what you do commercially. mike: it is clear your christian faith is important to you. secretary mcdonald: it is. i am a devout christian. their geology is -- spirituality is part of my life.
i was leading a large, global company. it is an important part of what we do in the va. we have chaplains. the spiritual nurturing of our patients is as important as the physical. they go hand in hand. i don't think it is a surprise when you serve in the military, you have a chaplain that goes into battle with you. in my case, the chaplains we had were dear friends and once who helped care for me spiritually and helped make your spiritually for the men with me.
mike: you are from cincinnati. when you're lost meal be ice cream, chile? secretary mcdonald: can i have all of the above? mike: what is your favorite food? secretary mcdonald: graters ice cream is incredibly delicious. it is chocolate raspberry. the chocolate chips are the size of candy bars. it is a great country. i like the philanthropy of la rosa's family. i think that our 11 strikeouts in the game by the reds pitcher, everyone gets free pizza. you cannot imagine what happens in the stadium. i worry a fan will go out and greece the bat -- grease the bat. mike: you want to a real deal
fantasy camp. secretary mcdonald: i turned 60 years old and former birthday dinner, my family played a joke and they gave me a letter from the reds saying they had drafted for fantasy camp. my son turned 30 years old. i never got to play with him so we went together. we played two games a day with professional uniforms, umpires, on special fields. by coaches were two great guys. the only problem was my son is very active on social media and while i love playing with him, i really didn't appreciate him putting on his facebook page that he hated that our hotel room smelled like bengay every night.
mike: thank you for watching. to my for serving -- thank you for serving, veterans. we think the bank of america for making this conversation possible. and mr. secretary, thank you. >> warner from the politico playbook breakfast. we hear from david brock who heads correct the record, a group whose mission is defending hillary clinton. this is half an hour. >> david, thank you for coming. this is debate day and david brock is our debate day guest. david who founded correct the
record, who is the human embodiment of the left-wing conspiracy in some ways. mr. brock: having been in the right-wing, but the difference is it was much more of a ragtag operation in the 90's versus what we see today. it is much more sophisticated. we all about the incredible amount of money the coat brothers are willing to put down in the selection to defeat hillary clinton. it is such a big number. we solidly republicans. -- solid the republicans last weekend where they were out there competing for the affections of the koch brothers. with that kind of money being spent, whoever the candidate on
the republican side is coming they will be beholden to the koch brothers in their agenda. they probably didn't plan for the frontrunner to be a billionaire himself, someone they cannot control. secretary mcdonald: you are the most vocal defendant of hillary clinton. at this moment, are you more irritated with fox news or the new york times? mr. brock: the new york times. easy question. look, -- mike: you have been complaining about the new york times. their coverage of an investigation of e-mails. what if they just made a mistake? mr. brock: institutions in general have been making mistakes all the time.
there are a couple issues. one, it is not the first time. there is a pattern. the first e-mail story they broke was botched and they had to walk back from the second thing is the way they handled it is questionable. readers still don't know thinks about how this went down. i think the issue is how did this happen? in the case of 60 minutes, when they botched the story, there was internal investigations. there is no review going on at the new york times as i am aware of. the sourcing is questionable. we were very heavy on right-wing media but people don't have to take my word for it.
the reality we are living in is there out to get hillary clinton and to elevate her opponent. that is the dynamic we are living with and it is not just mistakes are getting things wrong, there is collusion here. you have hillary clinton as the sole target of 17 republican candidates, congress, and the media. it goes all the way back to watergate. mike: you don't really think the political reporters are a secret den of right-wing nuts. mr. brock: not theologically but there are a number of cases. mike: they get used. there is an intense competition on the clinton beat. mr. brock: everybody wants to be first. it is certainly possible that they rest of the story out.
that is something we don't know because we don't know about the internal workings of the story but the incentive is to try to be first and to nail that pray. i think that it goes back to this model of theirs, at least to whitewater. i think the press has not learned from those mistakes and a lot of people now are repeating those same errors. whitewater was designed to show trustworthiness. in 1992, 8 was a gated operation but that it was a dated operation. the mainstream media sometimes as a vehicle for that. mike: you're one of the most sophisticated understandings of media.
you are a former investigative reporter. what can the clinton campaign due to turn around that dynamic? mr. brock: number one, i think this goes back to one of the principles of the 1992 clinton war room that every charge be answered. that does not have to be by the campaign. but you cannot let these things sit out there and be unanswered. a lot is beyond their control. what is in their control has been going really well. you have to give people their factual information on what they can make decisions. mike: you can see it is difficult to draw david out.
tweet us your questions. we will ask david brock your questions. explain the difference between correct the record and media matters and tell us about your empire. mr. brock: there are 12 distinct entities. basically five missions. media matters is the mothership started in 2004. that is monitoring a cross-section of mainly national press every day, posting about 400 critiques of media coverage. then came american bridge. that was an innovation on the democratic side in the way research was done. it was an innovative model.
we are combing through the records of republican candidates we have done some governor races. for two years now, we have been tracking and doing research on all of the republican field. we are further ahead than any other democratic organization has been in collecting that data. we have trackers, more than 50 young people in the field. not just at the presidential level in every competitive senator race. every event they can get into, they sound. when we have news, we put that out.
we were first out of the box putting that video up from jeb bush. mike: tell us how that happened. who spotted it. mr. brock: we have to move so we quickly it is a streamlined process. i don't even know until it shows up in my e-mail that we have done some. the trackers are outfitted to be able to move very quickly and there is probably one check point in d.c. and then it goes. mike: my colleague recently did a story about trackers. what is the new frontier, the cutting edge? what will be next in tracking technology? mr. brock: we have done some innovation not so much on technology but i think the next thing is for the tracker to be not fairly passive. -- not entirely passive.
that is something we will see more of. the entire operation is ongoing on both sides. i found that if you innovate, you get copied. so we started american bridge. now both sides are outfitted with these tracking operations and we are always looking for a way to get a competitive advantage. mike: this idea is very fascinating. in the past, trackers have been trained to be quiet. to stand back. why the change in philosophy? mr. brock: people are used to being tracked.
jeb bush -- deer in the headlights on what the paycheck fairness act was. that was a question and he either did not know what it was -- i don't know what the question was but that was one of our people. i'm just trying to illustrate that you can change the dynamic in the room with questions. you throw people off their game. then you cut somebody saying something they really think and that is what we are looking for. mike: bird dogging -- this will come from asking more aggressive questions. how else will we see this more aggressive philosophy? mr. brock: on the technology side, the details i don't know but we have been able to act much more quickly to get this video out than ever before. it is down to a matter of minutes. mike: secretary clinton has a problem that has nothing to do with fox news. she loses ground with white
women. this is the latest wall street journal nbc poll. she is losing 10 points among white women from june until july going from 44% of white women having a favorable view to 34%. in the first three months of the year, suburban women-18% positive review of her. in july, they have a negative view of her. what happened? mr. brock: do they say why? i don't know what happened. i can just say a few things about the polling. poll numbers come down the more active you are as a candidate. that has happened. secondly, in every poll,
secretary clinton is leading. her favorability's have stayed relatively steady even in the midst of the onslaught we described in the spring. at this early stage, perception of candidates and those numbers don't mean a ton but she has pretty much weathered the storm. mike: what are your worries at this point? mr. brock: i don't have any worries. mike: you would be the first person in politics and the clinton camp if that were true. if she is not president, it will be what? mr. brock: i think that there are things under your control in the campaign.
and that sphere, we see that she is doing swimmingly. but something in your control could go wrong. you could make a mistake, make a bad decision. if the question is is there something they will do to her that will make a difference, i find that unlikely. that is just having studied all this on both sides for all these years. we have seen the playbook. remember, president clinton won reelection twice in the face of these kinds of phony scandals. mike: they got she is so well known, she is probably the best defined person in the history of american politics. is that an advantage or vulnerability? mr. brock: it could be both. i think the problem would come in and that if people believed that they know hillary clinton,
and yet they don't, there is an awful lot in her 30 year public record that i think people don't know a lot about. i think that will come out in the campaign and that will be a huge plus for her. i wrote a book about clinton published in 1996. i want through a process as a reporter of looking at her record firsthand. i have done some of the early clinton scandal work. every incentive was to find ways to attack hillary and one of the
things i found, one of the reasons i support her trust are is i found somebody who had this lifelong commitment to public service. at every step of the way where she had choices to make, she was the embodiment of the everyday american values people can relate to. that all added up to strength of character and integrity. in the right wing, you couldn't even say hillary clinton did a good job raising chelsea. i feel like i are and that the hard way and i wrote in the book that i thought that it was possible some day possible sunday that she would be as a greater historical figure than her husband. i still believe that today and i think as americans are seeing, this is a lot of what i fall back on.
she has been such a trailblazer in so many ways for mike: how do you think history will regard her? mr. brock: i expect we will win this election and i expect that will likely lead to reelection. the obvious precedent here is the first woman president. i feel like people are ready for that and i think that will happen. mike: how powerful is that single point? does that single fact mean she is more likely to be president? how decisive will the fact be that she is a she? mr. brock: i think it will play a role. the history of it is that it is very hard to win that third term.
one of the reasons that precedent will be broken is because people are ready. it is not just for a woman, it is for this one. mike: you mentioned, it says his hard-hitting journalism has cast him as the bob dorn of the woodward of the right. right. how did the right turn you left? mr. brock: to make a long story short, i was trying to do two things at once. i was trying to be politically active and do journalism. at some point, there was a train wreck that happened between towing party lines and going with what you are finding in your journalism. i very specifically learned that
the sources around clarence thomas had seriously misled me. the book was written in good faith but when i found out, that was part of the story. it shook my foundations. it wasn't like one day i woke up and said supply side economics don't make sense. it was about the character and integrity of the people i was working with. mike: if you have a question for david brock have indicated and we will bring you a microphone. what do you hope to learn about the republican candidates tonight? mr. brock: a lot of the attention is on donald trump and rightly so but i think were interesting thing -- but i think the more interesting thing is jeb bush. i think the political story of
the last week has been the way hillary clinton took him on and shredded his reputation as a moderate. showed him to be the reactionary that he is. she showed that what he stands for is a policy platform approved. -- approved by the american enterprise institute. we're almost waiting for him to start to advocate -- it is like the 47% all over again. he is romney minus. what did he do when there was almost a knockout? he did nothing will stop that showed that he did nothing. he cannot stand up to hillary. mike: we're talking now of the confrontation in florida. he came out and did not respond. mr. brock: the only thing that happened later was that there was somehow a breach and that
, andbreach of civility that read to me that it was kind of a class entitlement. the contradiction is that if you want to stay above the fray, and you crumble, that can show you to be very weak. on the other hand, if you get in the fray, that is against our strategy. i don't think getting bloody was part of the script. i am looking for a republican who will stand up and say he can stand up to hillary because jeb has failed the test. jeb bush has failed the test.
in the tradition of the kinder and gentler h.w. bush, that is the strategy. the question is how do you handle the contradiction of doing that in the primary? i think what we will see tonight is that there are stylistic differences but on every issue, they are all the same. that will come through as well. mike: do you worry more about marco rubio or scott walker? mr. brock: i could be worried about either one. i think you have to be prepared for any eventuality here. it is a very hard race to predict. if the republicans followed their tradition, you would think that would be jeb bush but i think anything can happen and we can be back in 1964.
mike: tell me what that means. mr. brock: the nonestablishment candidate could end up with the nomination. mike: somebody not viable in the general election. mr. brock: right. somebody who has 45%. mike: if secretary clinton becomes president clinton, what will your role be? mr. brock: to do everything i can with the organizations i mentioned. mike: you're not going to the west wing? mr. brock: no. i am very satisfied with the impact we are having as an independent organization. if we are successful in aiding her in the election, the next
half -- you still have a republican congress, rough terrain. our role would be to try to ensure that she is able to govern successfully. that is keeping track of the press, opposition. a couple organizations i have does media training, one is an ethics watchdog. i want to put all of that to work for progressive government. mike: if she loses, what will you do? mr. brock: that is a good question. i don't know the answer to that. i am not planning for that so i not really thinking about it. mike: do you think you are unlikely to remain in washington? mr. brock: not really. obviously right now, corrected the record working with the clinton campaign is clinton aligned but if you go back to 2004, we were very young and weren't able.
to defend john kerry of effectively. we have done the same for progressive leaders for president obama and planned parenthood. the organizations were not founded around any particular candidate. they both live on no matter what i do. mike: you mentioned the media training. correct the record has an accused of pushing the boundaries of the campaign-finance wall, including trading clinton supporters. where do you see the line between what you can and cannot do? mr. brock: the line is that our communications are through free media and the internet. what we are not doing are being advertising campaigns. that is the distinction that
allows us to work in coordination with the campaign, and that is what we are doing. mike: you have a book coming about six weeks from now you work very hard on. it is called "killing the messenger." what is the big idea in this book? mr. brock: it is about how the art of scandal mongering has evolved in the time from when i was one of the people who invented it, if you will, through my time looking through these progressive organizations to fight that. it basically has three parts. one for those who read "blinded by the right."
it is a memoir. it takes the reader from 2002 to the present. it was based in part on a speech i gave at the library. in the spring of 2013. and what is the republican playbook against hillary and why is it all bs? and i take you through all of the pseudo-scandals. i think the value of that is that if people start to understand what propaganda is, it ceases to have an effect. i'm trying to precondition to understand.
we have seen this for 25 years and we know what this is. mike: as we say goodbye coming up had an apartment in new york for a while. what is it like to be a part-time new yorker? mr. brock: i love it. i try to get out a week a month. the downtime -- there is more to do. mike: you talk about the balance. what is the difference in the culture? mr. brock: d.c. can be a bit all work, no play. in new york, there is room for both. mike: what do you like to do there you don't appear? -- that you do not do here? mr. brock: there are more places to go to dinner, which i like to do. i have been here for a long time
-- since 1986. washington has gotten better. you can have a great meal anywhere. mike: anybody who has visited you knows toby. we have about 250 people in these organizations. mr. brock: we got grandfathered into our lease. mike: what is his role in the conspiracy? [laughter] mr. brock: i just hope he is not a double agent, let's put it that way. mike: thank you for watching and our friends at bank of america for making these conversations possible. i thank my colleague, politico. david brock, thank you.
enjoy the debate. at 11:00 after the debate, hop on politico.com. i will be there with a post game statement with my colleagues. come see us and we will see you then. washingtonext journal, your phone calls and reaction to the fox news republican presidential debate. after that, the u.s. census bureau representative and the washington post discuss bodo -- voter turnout since the late 1970's. plus, your facebook comments and
tweets. all on washington journal, live on 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this month, c-span radio takes you to the movies. here the supreme court oral argument. goldthis summer's woman in to the free-speech case from the 1996 movie -- the people versus larry flynt. story about the landmark civil rights case. court oralpreme argument from four cases that play the part in popular movies. easterns at 6:00 p.m. on c-span radio. listen to c-span radio. online at c-span.org. or download our c-span video app. leaders of canada's
leading parties. stephen harper call for the elections to take place on october 19. the camp -- the longest campaign in modern canadian history. >> the longest election campaign in modern canadian history has begun. good evening. i am paul wells, the political editor of the magazine. i was apprised about this as you were. -- i was surprised. we do not know whether that will happen again before you vote. i do not think they know. while they are here, let's make them work. we have dustin trudeau. elizabeth may, the leader of the green party.
tom all caps, the leader of the democratic party. and stephen harper, the leader of the conservative party. tonight's debate will cover watch wrote broad subjects at the top of voters minds. the economy, energy and the environment, the state of canada's democracy, and foreign policy and security. each segment will begin with questions for me to one of the leaders. leader willr respond to the first, followed by an extended discussion among all of the leaders. we will go through that process twice for each of our four subjects. to determine the random speaking order. everyone here knows that order. nobody in any of the parties has seen or heard the questions i will be asking tonight. the parties have agreed that if at any point, i can intervene, to direct the conversation.
let's begin with our first topic, the economy. is one subject on every voter's mind, as this election is a -- approaches, it is the economy. we have dangerous economic win-win blowing in canada. we are probably coming out of a mild recession. oil prices have slumped. exports are weak. what is ottawa's proper role in the economy? is canada's wealth fairly distributed? >> and as the luck of the draw would have it, the first question goes to the liberal leader. , good evening evening. canadians are feeling anxious about the economy. manufacturing is hurting. the price of oil is down. your economic plan is built around a middle-class tax break.
is that enough of a response given the challenge that you say canada faces right now? -- mr. trudeau: he is consistently chosen to give opportunities and tax breaks and benefits to the wealthiest canadians in the hopes that that would create growth. that is not happening and that goes to the heart of the question that is being posed in this election campaign. is it stephen harper's plan working for you? he took a decade of surpluses and turned that into a consecutive deficits. we are the only country in the g7 that is in recession right now with no plan to get out of it. wages are falling as well. it may not feel that way from sussex, but i know you feel that at home. the liberal party has put forward a plan to invest in the middle class, to support the middle class, and create growth
through supporting the middle class. we are the only party here tonight to create lowered taxes for the middle class by asking the wealthier to pay more taxes. we know that when you put money in the pockets of middle-class canadians, the economy grows. >> a lot of people, a lot of economists are saying that median incomes have been on the rise since 1990. you have a solution to a problem that is not really there? >> if you spend any time crossing the country talking to people, they are worried about saving for their own retirement or worried about making choices between their own opportunities and paying for their kids educations. people are worried that for the arst time perhaps we have generation against people that will not do better than the previous generation. we need solutions for that. it is not to continue giving benefits to the wealthiest.
the only risk right now would be sticking to what has been a failed plan for 10 years. >> at the luck of the draw, the first to respond is susan harper. >> let me correct a few facts. over the last 10 years, in a. of unprecedented economic instability, we have seen since the crisis, canada has the strongest economic growth, the strongest job creation record, and the strongest income growth for the middle class of any of the developed economies. what we face right now -- over 80% of our economy is growing. exportsnergy experts -- are up by 10%. we are weak in the energy sector, but our view is that we will have growth going forward. we should stick to a plan that is working, low tax, prudent plan that is working rather than
going to a plan of high taxes and high debt and high deficits. vocabulary you have used to describe your opponents plan is sometimes fairly grave. you're compared canada under the liberal degrees. -- two greece. changes in the tax rate at the margins have a credits traffic change -- catastrophic change? >> the other parties are proposing tens of millions of dollars of additional spending. the fact is paul, we know where that leads. countries in that position have not recovered from the recession and are stagnating. this country has had the best performance in major developed economies and we have some of the best prospects going forward. >> we were going to open it up
to all of the leaders now. >> i know that canadians work hard. to make ends meet and take care of their families. that is how i was raised. under mr. harper's watch, we have lost 400,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs very there unemployed more people than before. mr. harper's plan is not working. incomes are flatlining. household debt is skyrocketing. in the a plan to invest middle class and create new jobs. we want to invest in infrastructure. we want to give a break to small and medium-sized corporations. we sincerely disagree. we want to create $1,000,015 a day childcare spaces. >> i was in the 2008 leaders debate. clearly that mr.
harper was still talking about -- if there is going to be a recession, we would be in one already. are in a recession now. we have a weekend shrinking economy. this is the wrong time for austerity measures. canada'so build up economy. there is no investment going on and there has not been for the last 2-3 years. we need to make sure that this economy does not sputter to a halt. if we stay with mr. harper's risky plan, that is where we are headed. million net new jobs created since the global financial crisis. the best record in the g7. that is why incomes are rising across the board in this country. that is why we have manufacturing and other segments outside of energy that are expanding.
because we have a balanced budget and are able to make investments in health care and benefits for families. to startt the time spending tens of billions dollars -- tens of billions of dollars that we do not have. canadianslity is that know that times are tough. disconnectedme from the reality that the people are facing across the country. your plan is not working. the risk would be sticking to your plan. what we have seen is that he has put forward $15 minimum wage plans. what is actually the case is that he is misleading canadians. he is giving canadians false hope because his minimum-wage ofn will help less then 1%
every canadian veterans minimum wage. that false advertising is irresponsible. under our plan to introduce a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, over 100,000 canadians would get of raise. -- would get a raise. well-paid, manufacturing jobs lost during his mandate. and the jobs that are being created are mostly part-time, precarious jobs. one of canada's leading banks said that the quality of today's jobs being created are the worst quality in a generation. let me give you the facts and statistics canada. 90% of the 1.3 million net new jobs created are full-time. 80% are in the private sector. two thirds are in high wage
sectors. that is why incomes have been growing in this country. i will tell you what will not grow our economy. and another thousand dollars on the employer if you want to keep them on the payroll. these are not the ways you handle economic turbulence. mr. harper, you are chosen to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67 which is taking tens of thousands of dollars out of the pocket of our most vulnerable seniors. canadians know that you have let them down because you have chosen to continue to give benefits and tax breaks to the wealthiest canadians. canadians need help from their government and that is why our plan is focused on strengthening the middle class with a more generous child benefit.
that will lift kids out of poverty. stop sending government checks to millionaires. >> let me be clear what we have done to seniors. retirement age will not go up for 10 years. we have brought in the largest increase with a guaranteed income supplement for poor income seniors in 25 years. >> mr. harper that is not true. >> we are not halfway done this segment on the economy. >> none of the other parties have ever talked about touching income splitting -- >> your of promised to take it away from families who have a less generous income splitting
arrangement for pensioners. there is no reason -- >> with all due respect mr. prime minister, your cherry picking your data. comparing us to germany, where they do not have new people joining the labor market constantly. compared to other economies in the g7, we are doing very poorly. we are in a recession under watch for the second time. >> the fact that we are able to bring in immigrants, that is part of our economic plan. we are driving our economy. >> a net loss of jobs in july. what mr. harper fails to mention is that he has run up a deficits in a row. 150 billion dollars to canada's debt in the last 10 years.
headed, last week, as we into this campaign, in just one day, he spent over a billion dollars. mr. harper, we cannot afford another four years. >> we have a balanced budget. >> and that wraps up. that wraps up the first round of questions on the economy. we are only half done on the subject alone. the next question goes to the green party. the green party's policies call for a transformation of the exports toonomy from high-value added imports. what can the federal government do now, this year, to reanimate the economy? contextve to keep in that the oilsands are about 2% of our gdp. we are seeing other sectors rebound and able to export. our dollar should not continue to decline. say that sit back and
the current stagnant economy is quick to fix itself. we need investment. we need investment from the public sector. we need an army of carpenters, electricians, and contractors going out to plug leaky buildings. that is 30% of carbon pollution. heeding the outdoors in the winter and cooling in the summer. we also need to invest in municipal infrastructure. is infrastructure deficit $123 billion. we need to get added as our bridges and roads are crumbling. >> can you recruit your army of carpenters? , in athe scheme of things $2 trillion economy, we are not going to see a balanced budget this year. condemn them -- this
fixation on balancing the budget is being driven by the political imperative that the conservatives created by saying in the last election, we will give you all of these goodies once we balance the budget. this year, they monkeyed with the budget. they put it out april 21. because they wanted to book the sale of the general motors shares in the next fiscal year. we sold 73 million shares in general motors. was that a good policy choice? fiddling with the >> so that that showed in this year's budget, and the price of oil keeps dropping. that 150 more serious -- $150 billion of federal debt accumulated under this prime minister. respond.rst leader to >> i have a concrete plan to kickstart the economy and help the middle class. we are going to invest in infrastructure. we asked our municipalities and
local governments to assume 60% of the cost for infrastructure with only 8% of the tax breaks. we're going to reduce small business taxes because they are responsible for creating 80% of the new jobs. we are going to champion and you thinking and innovation including green energy technologies which will represent a $5 trillion investment over the next 15 years around the world. we are not part of it because mr. harper does not believe in a positive role for government in that. we will help the middle class because it is good for families and it is good for the economy with $1,000,015 a day childcare stations across canada. >> the challenge we are facing right now in the economy is creating growth. when of the things that is most taxerning in our corporate hike, we need more investment
and more growth and more jobs. his plan to hike corporate taxes is pandering to the people who like teekay corporation. we need that growth. the money does have to come from somewhere if we are going to invest and shrink in the middle class. i can understand why he has ruled out doing what we are doing which is asking the wealthiest 1% in this country to pay more tax so we can get a big tax break to the middle class. >> the real question is, after those tens of billions of tax cuts for the richest corporations, where are the jobs? on the question of personal income tax increases, we are firmly opposed to them. look at new brunswick. they will have a tax rate of 58.75%. how is new brunswick going to be able to attract and retain top level medical doctors when they are going to be told -- our tax rate is now close to 60%.
we think that canadians are paying their fair share. canada's largest corporations are not paying their fair share. the ndp will bring up their texas lately. cut thosem flattery corporate taxes, he said these corporations were the job creators. they sat on that money. $630 billion in cash. an astonishing 32% of canada's gdp is sitting stagnant. tois absolutely appropriate raise the corporate tax rate to about where it was in 2009. we would still be very competitive and we should do it as quickly as possible so we have money to invest in getting the economy moving again. >> let's be clear paul on the tax record. taxave created the lowest environment for business investment across the g7. that is one of the reasons we of the strongest employment growth in the g7.
business just for big that we have cut taxes for small business. the reality is not only did these tax cuts help create jobs, but our tax revenues actually went up from the business sector. we have done the same thing for people. we have cut taxes across-the-board with the bulk of those crap -- tax breaks for low income or middle income families. taxes -- those things would kill jobs in her ordinary people. >> mr. harper is once again issuing responsibility for eight successive deficits. inare the only g7 country deficit. home no that we are -- that this economy is not
working for them. the way to create growth in the canadian economy is to strengthen the middle class and make sure that the people have jobs and confidence and a and be surespend about the future that they are building. esther harper continues to give tax breaks to the wealthiest and that is not actually stimulated or help our economy. that is why canada is growing less fair. canadians across the country are looking for a change, a better approach and plan for the economy and that is what the liberal party is for. >> we have not only a balanced a budget but we have the lowest net -- debt level in the g7. we have by far the best fiscal situation going forward. we are creating jobs --
the opposition parties have consistently voted against and they want to reverse. in 2008, mr. harper was misleading. -- we are not in a recession and it turns out we were in the worst recession since the 1920's. he is trying to hide the fact that we are in a recession again. is a a deficit -- it deficits in a row. esther harper's job creation record is the worst since the second world war. clarification on the facts. year,ality is so far this we are substantially and surplus and in fact well ahead of our budget projection and those are the real numbers and our debt levels are -- >> for the past five months,
those same statistics from the canadian government have shown that for five months in a row, the canadian economy has shrunk. we are one month away from a technical definition of recession but according to a lot of observers, we are already in a recession. >> i am not denying that. i am saying -- the rest of the economy is growing. it is projected to grow this year ended the future years. the way to handle falling oil andes is not increase taxes increased spending. that is how countries get themselves into serious long-term trouble. >> mr. prime minister you made a promise in 2007 at you would tackle the barriers to trade and labor mobility within this country as an economic union. you said you would go to the constitutionmerce and here we are, we have more
barriers to trade within canada than the 28 nation states of the european union. where is your plan to break down the barriers? has onproblem mr. harper that one is that he has refused to sit down and talk over the last 10 years. showing leadership. we have a federation that needs people to sit down and talk about taxes, terriers, climate change, how we are going to help canadians get ahead in an uncertain economy. he has refused to engage with provincial leaders whether it is on interprovincial trade barriers, climate change, training and job creation and that is not the leadership that a broad and diverse country like canada needs from a prime minister. >> let's talk about trade. in the federal government are working together to break down traded -- trade barriers. under ourtantly,
government, we have increased the number of countries with which we have concluded trade deal from five to 44. and now a foothold in asia. no government has opened up trade opportunities for canadian companies and canadian workers like this government. >> stephen harper is the only prime minister in canadian hitter -- in canadian history which when asked about the recession during his mandate gets to say -- which one? he just admitted that we have had five months of negative growth in a row. mr. harper, we want to spend our time concentrating on creating jobs for canadians. what we are seeing here tonight is that you will do everything you can't to hang onto your job. i will do everything i can to create jobs. was to foothold in asia sell us down the river on national sovereignty. you bound this country without a
single set of hearings in parliament to a investment usaty with china which binds until 2045 and we cannot get out of it. we need to insist on transparencies because beijing will be looking over the shoulder of the next prime minister telling us which laws we can pass. leave this segment on the economy. this concludes our first round on the economy. we will continue after this break. please stay with us. returnsaclean's debate in three minutes. right now, we are coast-to-coast to coast with canadians reacting and analyzing what is being said tonight and what is not. a live look right now at st. john's newfoundland where students at memorial university have gathered at the breezeway to watch at the leaders face
off. west to tammy sutherland garnering reaction on a key issue the leaders were just discussing -- jobs. i am here at toronto seneca college where we have been watching the debate with some of this schools journalism students. what of those big issues is the difficulty in finding a job. we are joined now by a journalist student here. tell me about some of the concerns you have heard here from other students. >> speaking with students tonight, the biggest issue is jobs. we want to make sure that after spending so much money and time and investment on our education that there is a return. we want a job after this. we want to make sure we can make a dent in our student loans. what will the minimum wage be? >> loans another issue. >> post secondary education,
workshops after you finish your formal training, is there an opportunity for extended growth. >> going to roger now who is gauging the debate on facebook. thank you for joining us cap it. we have been asking you questions online. our first poll results are in. >> we opened the poll at the beginning of the debate and as you can see, we have 50% of the people who took our poll on facebook supporting mr. will mulcare. we're going to see over the course of the debate whether these numbers shift. >> we will be looking at some other polls. looking at other issues on the economy, energy and environment, how do canadians on facebook feel about these things. bethe nice thing is we will
able to gauge these reactions on facebook. >> in real-time. >> the place to go is a spot -- facebook.com. you surprised by what you are seeing here? moments.s early it will be interesting to see what we see over the course of the evening. >> sending you back to the maclean's leaders debate. our special analysis will continue. back to the debate. welcome back to the mclean national leaders debate. our second segment will be on energy and the environment. ago, the cabinet minister joe oliver told oil exports an urgent matter of canada's national interest. xl in the northern
gateway are stalled. >> we are glad this pipeline is underway. sincehas been four years canada withdrew from the kyoto accord. now environment canada says we will not meet our targets for carbon emissions for 2020. int is the proper trade-off wealth generating exports and the impairment? can canada afford to clean up its act? or not to? my first question on this topic goes to stephen harper. mr. harper, you have been prime minister for a decade and you want to be a dip -- a different kind of prime minister on energy. for ther export project united states and china has stalled on your watch. what of you achieved in energy exports that can beat the record of your creditors? not just oil and gas exports
to the united states but we have also seen an increase in uranium and coal exports to asia. the federal government does not build pipelines. favor seeing a diversification of our exports. we have established an environmental process. cap -- companies have to go through that process. in terms of the keys pipeline, that is a situation under control in the united states. i've spoken with president obama. he is not asking canada to do anything. he will make a decision that is interest.t american there is overwhelming public support on both sides. >> you think we have to wait for a new president for the keystone the path? pass?-to out am confident looking
that whoever is the next president, they will approve the project. >> have you found this to be frustrating -- joe oliver said northerntro the gateway project is an urgent matter in canada's national interest. three years later, it remains unfulfilled. >> the project went through a rigorous environmental assessment. the assessment recommended some 200 conditions on the project. we approved the project subject to those conditions. that is how the system works in this country. >> if there had been a price on carbon, four years ago, would obama have approved keystone by now? >> absolutely not. the president said that he has told me what factors would influence his decision. let us remember that the united totes has not agreed yet
greenhouse gas emission regulations on their own oil and gas sector. >> the first response you is elizabeth may. >> your record on climate is a legacy -- is a litany of broken promises. notcommitted in 2008 to export unprocessed oil to countries that have weaker emission standards in canada that would include china, the destination point for kindergarten -- kindergarten morgan. in also committed to bring north america wide trade program working with partners. that was in 2008. you committed to oil and gas regulations. you also personally went to copenhagen. it was not a previous promise. you were in copenhagen and
butitted to a week target we are not going to come anywhere near it by 2020. there is no credibility at this point. canada needs to take action. we are having a summer of extreme drought. raging wildfires. really severe weather throughout all of our season. canadians want action. we need to defend ourselves from the changing global climate and from the impact economically here at home. >> what mr. harper has consistently misunderstood about what happens in the 21st century is that you cannot make a choice between what is good for the environment and what is good for the economy. mr. harper continues to say -- we cannot do anything about the environment because we will hurt the economy. he has not only not help the environment but he has slowed our economy. exports toet our market because there is no public trust anymore. people do not trust this
government to look out for our long-term interests. he has not been working with first nations on the kinds of partnerships that are needed if we are going to continue to develop our natural resources. canada will always have an element of natural resources in our economy but the job to get those resources to market in the 21st century means being smart and responsible regarding the environment. to understand that is exactly why he has struggled to get our economy growing in the right way. >> let us be clear about the record. not only do we take both the economy and the environment seriously. we are the only -- we are the first government in canadian history to reduce greenhouse emissions while growing our economy. we have gone sector by sector where we regulate reduction in emissions and we do so in a way that will not kill jobs and will not burden people.
-- a carbon tax would hit ordinary workers hard. >> mr. mulcair: mr. harper thought that by gutting our environmental laws somehow he could get our energy resources to market better. how is that working out, mr. harper? one of those projects have gotten off the drawing board. it's not hard to understand why. canadians across the country want to clear, thorough, credible environmental assessment process. canada can be a leader around
the world. we can play a positive role. that with mr. harper, we have the worst of all worlds. air and water, more carbon pollution. ms. may: and it is -- the only way -- with all due respect, the only way you can take credit for the emissions drop, which only occurred in 2008 and 2009, as the global financial crisis. that's the only thing that --ught down in addition to emissions. they would have gone up much more than they had if not for the actions of ontario and british columbia. the cold, cruel reality is that under your watch, greenhouse gases have been rising, carbon pollution has been rising, as soon as our economy began to recover. mr. harper: greenhouse gas emissions have gone down, and the economy has grown. those are the facts. mr. mulcair says the various energy projects are going nowhere -- no, they are in a process that is going forward. we make sure that we look at the process and make decisions. the problem is that the other parties have taken positions, depending on who they are speaking to, against every single one of the project. -- projects. not just our projects, but in british columbia -- natural gas project. they have opposed the government to liquefy natural gas that is supported not only by the providence of british columbia, but by aboriginal communities and of broad cross-section --
ms. may: mr. prime minister -- mr. mulcair: frankly, canadians are tired of this leadership. you haven't been able to get it done. you haven't been able to get it done on the economy. you haven't built the kind of balance that canadians expect. if we are going to build strong communities and create jobs for children and grandchildren while protecting our air, water, land, we have to show leadership. you have it back from any sort of -- mr. harper: under the liberal government they were up 30%. mr. wells: mr. harper, will candidate meet the targets that -- canada meet the targets that you went to copenhagen to set? mr. harper: what happens with the targets -- i believe we will, but we are now focusing on a 2030 target. that's what every country is doing, in concert with international partners. look, we are going to have to do
more regulation and we are committed to that, but there will also have to be technological transformation. that is why we are investing over a billion dollars a year in energy projects. mr. wells: during your 2008 campaign, mr. minister -- when are they coming? mr. harper: i have been clear that this is an integrated north american sector and we need integrated north american regulations. i made that proposal to our partners in the united states and mexico. they haven't accepted it but we are ready to go. mulcair: when obama first came to ottawa he was all about announcing a north american energy partnership. he was going to work with canada, and that was eight years ago. obama just announced recently landmark legislation moving forward on climate change action. canada is nowhere to be found.
that is why the liberal party is proposing that we work again on a continental model with the united states and mexico to address energy and the environment in a conference of way -- comprehensive way. mr. wells: this question could go to some of your colleagues -- there is a paradox with the right price on carbon. what i hear from you is no, thanks. >> and canadians. mr. harper: the reason the environmental groups in canada and across the united states are so concerned about canadian oil is because mr. harper has turned it into the scapegoat around the world for climate change. he has put a big target on our oils, which will be a part of our economy for years to come, although we do have to get beyond them. his lack of leadership on the environment is hurting canadian jobs and other countries.
mr. mulcair: getting our resources to market is critical, but mr. harper has gotten the balance wrong. he has gutted our environmental legislation, and he knows that is hurting jobs in our resource sector, hurting our economy, hurting canada's international reputation. building on my experience, when i brought it over arching sustainable development legislation, i would enforce that type of legislation, make the polluters pay for the pollution they create, and it would get looked at with a thorough, and credible environmental assessment process. mr. harper and mr. trudeau both agree with keystone xl which represents the export of 40,000 jobs. i want to create those 40,000 jobs here in canada. ms. may: are you opposing the pipeline? mr. harper: he goes it is party to argue against canadian energy. a moment ago they talked about landmark decisions by the obama administration. they are pushing ahead with national regulations of coal-fired electricity. we did that in canada three years ago --
mr. trudeau: you did not do that, you were blocking that at every turn. mr. harper: that is why we have the cleanest electricity sector. mr. wells: this question goes to you tom mulcair. let's talk about the pipeline. you said you opposed to northern -- the northern gateway keystone , xl, and energy east. should canadians just assumed that major energy export projects will be on hold for the duration of your term in office? mr. mulcair: i believe that a clean environment and strong economy go hand-in-hand. in the case of the northern gateway, i got a chance to visit there was no safe way to bring , those supertankers into that narrow channel -- that doesn't
make any sense. what i have said in the case of the keystone xl, he heard me repeat, part of sustainable development is creating those value-added jobs in your own country. you don't export them to another country. that 40,000 jobs figure is mr. harper's figure. they were boasting that it would create 40,000 jobs. i want to create that here in canada. with regard to energy east, it could be a win-win-win. better price for the producers, it could also help create jobs in canada, and it could help with canada's own energy security. but here is the rub. mr. harper has gotten the balance wrong. he has scrapped a series of important environmental laws, starting with the navigable waters protection act. species at risk have been affected, fisheries. instead of dealing with first nations on a respectful basis, he spends $100 million fighting them in court. we will take a different approach. we will work with first nations. mr. harper's belligerent,
butting heads approach is not working and that's why not one of those projects have gotten off the table. mr. wells: in an interview you said that for it to make sense you have to internalize the price of carbon. that sounds like a carbon price -- would that affect consumers at the gas tank? mr. mulcair: internalizing the cost, as i said before, making the polluter pay -- that is a normal rule of sustainable development. otherwise you are making everybody in society pay. user pay, the leader pay, -- basic rules of sustainable development. i went so far as to change the charter boat to include the right to a clean environment. mr. wells: thank you. justin trudeau. mr. trudeau: mr. mulcair has been somewhat inconsistent on pipelines to -- on pipelines.
he will say he supports the pipeline and in french he said it was out of the question. that kind of inconstancy is in the kind of leadership we need. you can't say one thing and english and another in french. the fact is that we need to restore public trust in our ability as a government to create a level playing field on which opponents of a project can acquire social license, gain public trust, to make sure that the right partnerships are in place, and to make sure that the right partnerships are in place -- the scientific oversight are protecting canadians. this is about not just doing right by our environment, it's also doing right by future generations. i have three kids and i know i want them to grow up in the country as fresh and pure and clean as canada was, as we remember it. for that to take hold, we have to have a government that is demonstrating leadership. understand that you cannot make
a choice between what's good for the environment and what's good for the economy. in the 21st century, they go together. investing in clean tech, and jobs, and pollution reductions, it's what this country hasn't done well enough. mr. harper: you do executive at -- you do exactly what you accuse mr. mulcair of doing. all of these parties have opposed all of these projects before we even had environmental assessment. that's not the responsible way to do things. the government has environmental assessments, you take a valuations, and move forward -- evaluations and move forward. and that is taking the jobs and the economy seriously along with the environment. the way you don't deal with it is impose carbon taxes that raise money for the government but don't reduce emissions. they hit consumers hard. the price of gas goes up, home
heating, groceries, you name it, that is not the way to deal. mr. mulcair: mr. harper, alberta and british columbia and quebec have their own carbon right now. >> different provinces have different approaches. some of them i prefer more than others. alberta had a very limited carbon price. it was a tech fund within the industry. it was not about raising revenue for the government. it was not about taking money from consumers. the carbon price proposals proposed by the other parties would involve tens of billions of dollars of revenue for governments. i will say what i said to people across the country -- a carbon tax is not about reducing emissions. it's a front, it's about getting revenue for government that cannot control -- ms. may: i have to try to explain that the reason the green party opposes every single one of the pipelines proposed, risky pipeline schemes could get
unprocessed oil out of this country. -- mr.l care is right, every singleight, one of these unprocessed oil pipeline schemes is about exporting canadian trust. that is why the green party opposes every single one. i would like to hear mr. mulcair's answer on whether he will join us and fight the expansion of unprocessed oil. will you help defend our coastlines? mr. mulcair: i share the same concerns as miss may with regards to the kinder morgan pipeline. did you know the groups involved in those processes are not even allowed to cross examine the company's witnesses? that is a fundamental breach of the rules of natural justice. ms. may: are you oppose the -- opposed to the pipeline? mr. mulcair: opposing this pipeline systematically in
advance is just as wrong as supporting. in both cases what you need is an objective -- ms. may: you said we should wait for results? mr. mulcair: we would be replacing the extremely dangerous trades that are going s going through communities all across canada. that is the type of evaluation we should do. if we can get back to a credible system which we have lost. mr. trudeau: canadians know we need an actual approach that gets it, that restores the public trust that we have lost over the past years. mr. harper has failed on the environment and has failed on the economy. mr. mulcair continues to say different things in both languages, but i will say on energy east, i have consistently said it needs to gain social license. the conservatives in new brunswick -- you criticize them when they were government so i don't know what mr. harper is talking about. mr. harper: exactly the opposite. in an interview --
last fall, it is easy to find the quote online. ms. may: i'm still not sure where you stand on kinder morgan, it is important. they would left vancouver with hazardous material. know what kind of process it goes through, it should not go ahead, it should be stopped. mr. harper: this is part of my track record. when it was across from quebec city i was the minister of the environment, i didn't even want to look at it because of the danger. the same approach i took with the dangerous tankers in the douglas channel. with regard to these other projects, we have to be able to look at them objectively with the road credible -- thorough, credible environmental assessments. i and taking the position that you can study these projects. ms. may takes the position that you can say no to all of them in advance. mr. harper takes the position
that you can say yes in advance. we want a clear, thorough, credible process. mr. harper: the position of the government is that we have a scientific expert evaluation of every project before we decide to proceed. that is how the government has handled these projects. mr. mulcair has already rolled -- ruled out a number of projects for the web through the process and is positioning himself to be against others. that is the record. they are always for projects until they face one. that is why in british columbia they oppose even liquefied natural gas. mr. mulcair: mr. harper, i have a track record that people are free to look at. when i was the administrator of the environment we took tough budgets. there was a bridge lots of , opposition to it, we went through a thorough evaluation process input down 18 conditions. the public that had been opposed to it was on our side by the end of it because they could have confidence in us. respect for the environment and
a strong economy are not opposites, they go hand-in-hand. mr. harper: your party opposes liquefied natural gas project. -- projects. ms. may: mr. prime minister, where was your commitment at the g 20, you would end fossil fuels. you have just criticize the -- criticized the other opposition parties over new subsidies to fossil fuels. you made a commitment globally. you have not eliminated the subsidies. now you have added new subsidies to liquefied natural gas, fracked gas, which has the same carbon pollution footprint as coal. mr. harper: actually neither of those things is true. the government has eliminated subsidies. we have provided accelerated capital costs to provide clean , liquefied natural gas to encourage the industry that is vital not just a british
colombia, but to the energy sector in this country. we are doing so at a time when the energy sector has challenges. these are good projects for the environment and for our economy. mr. trudeau: one of the things we've seen right across the board from this government is a misunderstanding of the role of government around protecting our future. we have at the liberal party is party, a very clear plan to reduce climate change emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, can fight climate change by working. 86% of our economy have put a price on carbon, but the actions of four provinces say that -- the liberal party is focused on working with those provinces to make sure we do reduce emissions. that is what canadians expect in order to be good players in the global economy. mr. wells: i have so many questions, and i know so many of you have so much to say but we , will have to wrap up this segment on energy and the environment.
i want to remind our viewers that if you want to engage on social media and have your say, you can do so on our facebook page. you can talk to other voters while you are watching on tv. we could talk about these issues all night, but it is time for a break, stay tuned. ♪ >> a live look at the burgundy line in montreal as canadians continue hearing the issues that matter from coast-to-coast. we will get back to the debate in minutes. first, city news continues with in-depth analysis as the first debate of the election season intensifies. >> welcome back. we are joined by kevin, the public policy manager at facebook. we have been talking about the polls -- the latest is about a carbon tax. surprising, resounding numbers.
kevin: we have an overwhelming majority of canadians who took the pole in said they believe that there should be a price put on carbon. >> that surprising when you overlay it with the numbers over the last few months. kevin: absolutely, when you look at the map of canada, up to 338 different varieties, and one of the key issues they care about -- this is a map of preferences for energy and the environment. the darker spots are in alberta. >> this is a tight show. we have a special panel of political journalists. cynthia. cynthia: the gentleman with me knows the ins and outs of canadian politics and they will be joining me for the next few hours. we have john getty, justlin ling. who is winning so far? >> it is a bit of a split. trudeau was clear and concise in the first round.
ulcairemuller care -- m had a very serious indictment of the prime minister. harper stays standing and that's all he really had to do so it's a bit of a washout. >> mulcair had the challenge and not playing to the pugnacious image. he was more prime ministerial. less of a fighter, more of a guy that can talk in a conciliatory way. i think he has managed that so far. most of the tough talking has come between trudeau and harper. cynthia: initiated by trudeau as well. >> i will have to agree with justin -- there is a split at the moment and i think the photo -- boxing photo op showed in the debate when he came out swinging. mulcair at the star didn't seem to get his point across that as the debate went on he felt more relaxed. he looks better, more calm.
cynthia i thought it took him a : little longer to make his stride. harper hasn't been as aggressive as i would have thought. we will be back shortly with more from our panel. students atnto, necagogue college -- se college. mr. wells: we have reached the halfway point of the maclean's national leaders debate. our next topic of conversation is canada's democracy -- how it works, why it doesn't always work as well as we hope. much is surprising how time we have spent in recent years debating the institutions of canadian democracy. the senate is a mess can we , clean it up? should we shut it down? is that even possible? there are serious questions about how closely our elections reflect the will of the voters. how can we fix the core in the house of commons? -- decorum in the house of
commons question mark -- comments? are all the appointments the government makes an office -- mr. wells: our first question is to elizabeth may. you have called the government we have now and elected dictatorship, and you have called for electoral reform. this election will be won and loss under the current electoral system. are you worried green candidates will take support away from other parties? ms. may: when i refer to the government as an elected dictatorship, it's not personal to his prime minister. it's a reference to what's happened -- a creeping growth of power in the prime minister's office which goes along with less of a role for individual members of parliament doing their fundamental jobs. the only job description as that found in the constitution. which is to represent your constituencies. we need to revisit parliamentary
democracy. understand that this election isn't about electing a prime minister. we don't do that in this country. we elect members of parliament their job is to find the , government that will hold the house so we can work for canadians. as far as greens being concerned, not at all. we have had success, and we have viral,election status go across provinces in british columbia, in new brunswick, and prince edward island. all of us got elected by driving up voter turnout. instead of fixating on this splitting the vote nonproblem, we need to focus on the real of canadians in the last elections haven't voted. vote abandoning is a much bigger problem than vote splitting. we will do everything we can to reach out to young people, first nations, and those disadvantaged by the conservatives fair elections act to get out a higher level of votes so greens can win in the current system and so canada wins.
mr. wells: you say we don't elect the premised her, and that andlect the prime minister, that is true we saw quite a mess , of a coalition crisis in 2008. are we headed toward that sort arbitrage among parties in the next election? work across will party lines to ensure that we get to a stable parliament. you look at great parliaments, i where theers back to small group under lewis delivered our social safety net.
mr, trudeau: she makes a number of great points including one i hear talking to young people. negativity, the divisiveness which is rewarded all too often with electoral success but makes it more difficult to govern. one of the things that frustrates people is when they see politicians pander. one of the things that unfortunately mr. mulcair is talking in french about his desire to repeal the clarity act. make it easier for those who want to break up the country to do so. he is disagreeing with the supreme court judgment that said one vote is not enough to break up the country. anyone who wants to the prime minister should be committed to the unity. mr. wells: mr. mo care -- mulcair, you get to answer that.
mr. mulcair: i have fought for canada my whole life committed in 1980 referendum, the 1995 referenda vivid i spent 13 years in the national assembly, and i was always consistent fighting for canada. it is frustrating for liberals that the first time in a generation, quebecers voted for -- massively for a federalist party and wanted nothing to do with liberals. it is easy to understand why. the only two people i know in canada who are anxious to start talking about separatism again and joe totrudeau set. he has an obligation to come clean with canadians. what is his number? what is your number? mr. trudeau: i do not question your patriotism. mr. mulcair: you haven't answered the question. mr. trudeau: my number is nine. nine supreme court justices said
one vote is not enough and yet -- not enough to break this country up, yet that is mr. mulcair's position. he is siding with the separatist movement in quebec and not the supreme court of canada. it is his policy to appeal the clarity act. he quietly put forward a bill in the house of commons. he loudly announced it in french six weeks ago. he will not talk about it. mr. wells: is there a margin you think would be acceptable? trudeau: it said the numbers to be set in the context of the next referendum. >> i'm not going to question his position as a federalist. that is clear, what i think i do question is why bring up a
debate of the clarity act other than satisfying the separatist elements. we had quebecers reject that agenda. nobody wants to raise this. why would we go down the road of talking about how to break up the country when in fact, quebecers do not want to do that? >> there is a debate that would decide this question. let me put the question to the prime minister. mp i doormed in fee -- not believe i have heard you give a number or revisit that question. mr. harper: i do not think it should be revisited. in 1995, they try to get 50% plus one by invalidating federalist votes. i think quebecers have a firmly rejected that. they have gone through 40 years
of the debate that has done nothing but damage. >> the prime minister and i agree yes means yes. that is when he put in the bill. to say otherwise, while refusing to give his number is a dangerous precedence. if yes does not mean yes, people could decide to vote yes as a way of sending a signal. that is why it is a dangerous political game, and not a serious way to talk about a serious subject. i have confidence in quebecers who have twice rejected separation. i thought in both of those fought in both of --se referendums are in referendums. he thinks it is a winning situation for the liberals to
scratch that old wound. >> you were the one who announced that condition on separation. my position is the supreme court position is the numbers should be set in the context of the next referendum. play to play -- your strike up that separatist vote to announce this is going to be your policy is not worthy of a prime minister. no prime minister should make it separate. quebec to ms. may: isn't it ironic that this is about our democratic institutions. starting with clips about how much heckling is in the house of commons. we can as canadians, disagree without being disagreeable. i would like us to be able to talk about what we do about fixing parliament, that is an urgent crisis. i do not believe we want to get ourselves mired into any thread