tv Washington This Week CSPAN September 20, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
that we are prepared to take some kind of action. in order to get their attention. my hope is that it gets resolved short of that. and ultimately, the goal should be to have some basic that oneonal framework be perfect because there is though going to be a lot of nonstate actors that -- and hackers -- who are very good. and we will still have to have good defense is the have to be able to find the fingerprints of those and apprehend them and stop networks that are engaged in cyber crime. but among states, there has to analogouswork that is to what we have done with nuclear power. because nobody stands to gain. although the chinese
and russians are close, we are still the best at this. offense, ato go on whole bunch of countries would have some significant problems. see theon't want to internet weaponize in that way. that requires, i think, some tough negotiations. we would like to see -- if we and the chinese are able to foresce around a process negotiations, that i think we can bring a lot of other countries along. >> and we will work with you on that. thank you. president obama: thank you. >> thank you for being here. it is also good to be reminded occasionally of some of the progress we have made. thank you for that. when to be a is good, even the iran deal, health care setting up, all good. the place we haven't made a lot of progress, but is really important for businesses, is on
tax and tax reform. what we are getting to now is a think the most like kind of being backed in a corner. we are starting to talk about some deals. and the sub deals are destructive in this roundtable's view to the total tax reform. can you help us think about how we should negotiate this -- this duality that we are in right now , and where you think we will end up? president obama: we put forward a proposal early on that i'm confident i could sell to this group. not everybody would be thrilled, but i think i could argue that over time, would be good for business. because essentially what we proposed was the traditional framework for tax reform," post,
,ower rates, -- tax reform ,lose loopholes, lower rates and allow for repatriation. but when not simply -- would not simply empty out the treasury. and would generate enough revenue that we could actually also pay for some infrastructure. that we wouldas get some nibbles on the other side. to his credit, paul ryan expressed real interest in discussions and negotiations, but your previous bigger, mitch mcconnell, has said that he is not interested in getting tax reform -- comprehensive tax reform of that sort done.
so, there is still work being done. we are still in conversations with mr. ryan. and i know that senator schumer and others have been working on the possibilities of a -- a fairly robust package. but ultimately, you are going to have to have the leader of the senate majority party brought in to try to get this done. you know, i understand why tax reform is looser. us who believef in a simpler, fairer, more competitive tax framework in the abstract sometimes look at our bottom line and say, i don't know, that reduction is helping us pretty good here. organizationhis has been supportive, there are other business organizations and
town that have some pretty strong influence over the republican party that haven't been as wild on it. partly because their view on it is that the only kind of tax reform that is except herbal is one that would also lower all rates,, regardless -- regardless of its effect on the deficit. that is not something that is viable. so we are going to keep on working on it. my suggestion would be that the brt continue to encourage speaker boehner, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell to come up with an ambitious package. and what i can is sure you is ssurethe white house -- a is that the white house will take it seriously. we don't expect that everything in our original package would go for it, but the one thing we couldn't do -- and -- you know
-- i get concerned sometimes that what is labeled as tax reform ends up just being cuts. you are not closing the loopholes. and as a consequence, it is a huge drain on the treasury. we then suddenly are accused of running up the deficit to help your tax rates, and we are not doing enough to help grow the economy and helped ordinary workers. so that is the one direction week can't go in. tom. >> thank you for being here. let me hear your thoughts on energy policy, but i know we talk a lot about all the above. i think what is really changing kind of in an unprecedented way he recently our technology revolutions that are occurring in the production of energy, or perhaps more poorly in the use
of energy. that gives americans, i think, a way to playoff on what has been a set of unprecedented challenges. what is your thoughts on that? president obama: time, i think you described it well. i am much more optimistic about our ability to get a handle good forergy that is our economy, good for business, good for consumers, good for job creation, and maybe save the planet in the process. i am much more optimistic about that now that i was when i started as president -- than i was when i started as president. and a good example is solar. the -- the which unit costs for solar energy have gone down is stunning. we have seen not quite the same
pace, but similar project -- progress around wind. our natural gas production is unprecedented. and i have been very supportive of our national gas production as being not only important to our economy, but also geopolitically. it is a huge recipe for energy independence, as long as we get the methane discharge issues right. and i think there are ways of doing that with sound science. so, that is on the production side. as you said, on the utilization side, all of you are -- there is not a company here that is not producing significantly more thanct with less energy you were just 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago. seenbody here has -- has
the power of tracking utilization, identifying waste, around wheng issues his energy expensive, when his energy cheap. so there is enormous progress on the commercial side heard and then individual -- commercial side, and then individual households, we are able to fine-tune our energy usage in ways that we haven't seen before. and then you have the whole transportation sector, and which we have continued to make significant progress. in detroit, as well as upstarts like tesla. there is still some distribution, network issues around the transportation revolution, although companies like ups are doing a great job.
they are already experimenting with their fleets. so that is all good news. the big say that -- challenge now, if we are going to realize all the potential utilitieso work with so that they have a business model in which they are making money while seeing this change in distribution patterns and grid. because i think there is still some legitimate economic issues there that have to be sorting through. and it is tricky because it is a patchwork system. we don't have one national grid, obviously. the second thing is investment in basic research is to continue. battery technology is greatly improved, but we still haven't seen all the breakthroughs i think we can make with battery
technology that would make a huge difference in storage. forthat is an exciting area -- for development. the brt, i would urge -- and some of you as companies have already done this -- view the issue of climate change and the -- [indiscernible] -- as an opportunity rather than as a problem. because this is coming. it is coming generationally. if you talk to your kids or my kids, they are much more attuned to this issue. consumers are going to be caring about it more and more. the environmental effect we are seeing. i am going to be calling jerry brown later today just to talk about california wildfires.
some of you may have read about the snowpack in the sierra nevada's. the lowest it has been in 500 years. the flooding problems we are seeing in places like south florida. it is just a high tide, suddenly billions of dollars of property is under water. so this is coming. it for us to be out ahead of and to think about how our cannuity and our science solve these problems is going to give us a jump on everybody else. that somes a pledge members of the brt have organized around supporting a strong peers agreement. i would encourage you to look for opportunities on this. and that includes, you know, companies that have been in traditional fossil fuels because, you know, if you know
how to do oil and gas well. you can figure out how to do -- and gas well, you can figure out how to do solar well. you can figure out how to create efficiencies that help your bottom line. and what we try to do with the clean power plan is to give states flexibility understanding everybody has a different energy mix. down south, we approved the first nuclear plant in a generation, basically, because we think nuclear needs to be a part of that package. that therebeliever are going to be different ways to skin a cat on this thing, we just have to set a baseline in which all of us understand the direction we need to go. instead of us spending a lot of time fighting science, let's go with signs. we usually do better when we are on the side of facts and evidence of science.
just as a general rule, that is -- has proved to be our strength as americans. yeah. just turn back to china for a second, the, you know, there are a lot of issues we have to sort out. i do mentioned a couple -- security, their feelings about tpp, their own economy, their inward turn in the name of thating consumer economies has some protectionist elements we don't like. i think, though many in this room would like to see some kind of positive outcome from the summit. that underlines our mutual benefit if we can figure out some of these things. and find a way for the world's two biggest economies to see a path forward, as well as all the issues we've got.
do you have a comment on the tone you are going to try to set with the president? and roles that we can play in ourorting both the managing relationship, as well as finding a future for it? president obama: my tone has been pretty consistent. it doesn't jump up and down depending on where the polls are. china should be and will continue to be an economic competitor. to make sure that reachingow -- we are an understanding with them about our presence as a pacific power.
that it is in our interests for china to continue what has been dubbed a peaceful, orderly rise. china is a big place with a lot of people. and we are better off if those eating and have shelter and are buying consumer ands, rather than starving rioting on the streets. what i have consistently community -- communicated since i came to office is our goal is to have them as a partner in helping to maintain a set of international rules and norms that benefit everybody. that, in fact, facilitated
china's rise. riding onessentially our backs for the last 30 years because we were underwriting you know, they, free flow of commerce. international rules the financial sector. matured, whatve we have said to them is with power comes responsibility. so now you have to step up. you can't act as if you are a third world country. and pursue protectionist oricies or engage in nothing not protect intellectual property at a time when we are the-- when you are they'll second and eventually probably the first largest economy in the world.
you can't simply pursue an export driven strategy because you are too big. you are not going to be able to grow your economy at the same pace over the next 20 years that you did in the last 20 years. what's your economy reaches a certain size, there is not enough global market to absorb that. so which means you have to start thinking about transparency within your own economy and how you are setting up a safety net so workers have some cushion, and in turn are willing to spend money as opposed to stuff it in the mattress. you have to be concerned about environmental issues because you can't breathe in beijing. country with a powerful military, you can't go around pushing your neighbors around just because you are bigger.
but you have to -- [no audio] -- because ultimately you will be advantaged by everybody following the rules. under think in some areas, china understands this. in other areas, they don't. in some areas, they still see themselves as the poor country that shouldn't have any obligations internationally. and in some cases, they still them ont when we call issues like their behavior in the south tennessee -- south china sea that we are trying to contain them, as opposed to us just wanting them to abide by the same rules that helped create an environment in which they can rise. our -- good news is that
our faiths are sufficiently many ways, -- and in they still need us a lot more than we need them. that i think they are going to there are going to be continuing areas in which they move to as long as we don't resort to the kind of loose talk and name-calling that and notice some of our presidential candidates engage in, people you it -- it tends not to be constructive. the one -- so the bottom line is, jim, the summit will be useful. there will be a lot of outcomes around things like energy and climate change. around things like improvements
in how they deal with investors that will show constructive progress. i think our military conversations have been much better than they were when i began office. the one thing i would suggest do,bart can do -- brt can two things, number one -- when you're companies have a problem in china, -- your companies have a problem in china and you want us to help, you have to let us help. don't tell us on the side we have this problem, you need to look into it, but then -- but leave our names out of it because we want to be punished kind of thing. typically we are not effective with the chinese unless we're able to present facts. and evidence of a problem. otherwise they will just stonewall and slow walk issues. we are seeing
problems in terms of the ,ompetitive environment there in terms of unfair competition, that runs afoul of understanding the principles that have already been established, you have to let us know and let us be your advocate. that is important. the second thing i think everybody here should do is not fall into the same trap that we fell into around japan in the china, which is somehow is taking over, just like japan was taking over, and we are in an inevitable decline. i am just argument -- going to go on a quick rant here for a second -- this whole notion that somehow we are getting out, competed out, dealt
out, this, that, we are losing, we are -- nobody outside the united states understands what we're talking about. i mean, we've got problems, we've got issues. our biggest problem is gridlock in washington, but overall, our cards are so much better than everybody else's. our pool of quality businesses and talent and our institutions and our rule of law and how we manage and adapt to new and changing circumstances and our dominance in knowledge-based industries -- nobody matches us. and we attract the best talent around the world still wants to come here if we just let them come.
know, i think it is important for business voices to point out every once in a while, ,merica is in the driver seat if we make some smart decisions. and that is not a partisan comment. that is just the fact. there is not a country of the right now, including china, that wouldn't look at us with envy right now. are not thatoblems china is going to out negotiate is outhat mr. putin strategizing us. anybody take a look at the russian economy lately? that is not the problem. -- i'm being generous when i say "we," but -- [laughter]
we engage in self-inflicted wounds like this potential government shutdown. it is unnecessary. i have time for a couple more questions. how you doing? how is everybody back home? good. >> [inaudible] -- this summer, the expiration of the xm bank authorization -- president obama: speaking of self-inflicted wounds. >> and part of the ongoing discussion, debate here in washington, the senate has attached a reauthorization to the transportation bill, which is now down at the house. and we, on monday, the roundtable sent a letter to the leadership on both sides in congress pointing out really the benefits of a reauthorization that some of those get lost in this debate because really it has been characterized as only
benefiting a few companies, which ignores the thousands of people who are basically employed i our suppliers across the country and the positive impact that has, as well as it is a net generator revenue for the government. and we have plans to have further discussions later today and this week with leadership in the house. we had a goodny -- discussion with the team this morning -- do you have any insights you could share with us that would help us in getting that we authorization? issident obama: it mind-boggling that this wasn't reauthorized a year ago. and it is this weird reversal in opponentsprincipal
are the tea party caucus and republican party. somehow, xm bank has cap -- of -- what celeb some of the presidential candidates call crony capitalism. and what is ironic is some of you know the back story. there is a member of this organization that kind of started this whole thing because they were upset about some to as being sold competitor on a route and tell them it is caught fire in the right-wing internet. and it is just hard to explain. look, ed, i had a group of small businesses ranging from four people to a couple hundred people talking about how they use xm. this is the only way they can get into these markets.
xm doesn't said, cost the government. not a money loser for us. and, you know, i don't have to tell jim how important it is, i keep on telling them i expect a gold watch from them because it seems like every time i make a foreign trip, i have to sell some turbine or plane. know what, i was concerned about jeff's announcement that jobs that were here in the united states are not going to be going overseas because we don't get this done. but that is true for the supply chain. it is also true for some smaller companies that use xm directly. it is not just that they are part of ge or boeing supply chain, they are selling to our
country and this is the only mechanism they have to make those sales. the good news is mcconnell and boehner both say they want to get it done. we have already shown there is sufficient votes what in the senate, and we think there are some shouldn't votes for it -- there are sufficient votes for it in the house. i would concentrate your attention on house republican caucus members. i think you have to flood the zone and let them know this is important. and that includes, by the way, talking to individual members who in their districts potential he have companies that are being adversely affected as long as xm is frozen. but my expectation is that it gets done during the course of these budget negotiations.
and we are going to push as hard as we can to get it done. yet. mr. president, thank you for being here today. one of the issues we deal with and we talked about last time you hear was regulation. one of the areas that this roundtable is refocused on these days is the ozone role, which you administrationwhich octoberr administration would be coming out with a recommendation associated with that. the business roundtable position is that we need to maintain the lowerts per billion to that standard went technology doesn't exist and what communities are already advancing toward the 75 goal. if you lower it to 70 it will introduce another 200 counties in this country into nonattainment. which is basically not open for business. that is our concern. do you have any thoughts on that ? there's a lot of complicated
technical issues involved in this. i will try to simplify it as much as possible. number one we are under a court order. to do this. be ank there may misperception that the epa can do whatever it wants here. broughtre lawsuits under the previous administration that continued into my administration. we went before a judge. properly,y, i think got some additional time because there was the notion that we were going to lower standards a few years ago. and then immediately get new data and force everybody to lower them all over again. and then we said let's just do this one time in a sensible way so people can plan. but we have some legal constraints. this is not something that just popped out of my head. full-blown.
i always enjoy seeing the advertising for, obama's ozone plan. rules date back to when i was still in law school. before i had any gray hair. stringentsome fairly statutory guidelines by which the epa is supposed to evaluate the standards. so the epa is following the science and the statutes as best as it can. we are mindful that in some cases because of the nature of where pollutants are generated and where they blow that this can create a really complicated situation for certain local jurisdictions and local communities and some states and
counties end up being hit worse than others and we are trying to work with those states and communities as best we can, taking their concerns into account. line is --e bottom you can legitimately go after me on the clean power plant rule. because that was hatched by us and i believe that we need to deal with climate change and so we can have a lengthy debate about that. ozone, this is a existing statute and existing mechanism and we are charged with implementing it based on the science presented to us. and that's what we're trying to do. we are taking this input into
account. i recognize some of the concerns. i will say this. last point i will make on this. the costs associated implementing the ozone rule, when you do a cost-benefit, the amount of lives saved asthma averted and so forth is still substantially higher than the cost. that doesn't necessarily resolve all the concerns people may have about local costs being borne where is the savings are spread out more broadly. issuesitimate economic like that are to be considered. listening toeen every stakeholder there.
i think what you will see in the analysis overall is that we don't issue a regulation where the costs are not lower in the benefits. at the regulations we generally put forward, the costs are substantially lower than the benefits that are generated. many of us are interested in cuba. and the opening there has been positive. there are a lot of issues to get to full normal relations. how do you see that happening and what is the future of that in your opinion? >> i don't think it's going to be an overnight transformation. that by convinced reengage in cuba, re-engaging the cuban people, that we are creating the environment in
which a generational change and transition will take place in that country. already, you are seeing conversations taking place about -- how is cuba going to accommodate an influx of tourists? how do they think about the internet? indications -- open communications in order to be participate in the modern economy? that inevitably leads to questions about, can a company hire a cuban directly as opposed to going to the government? spaceertime, that creates for personal freedom and i think a long-term political transition. for now, what we have said is step-by-step look
for areas and opportunities within our authorities as long as congress still has the embargo in place, there are certain things we can't do, but there are certain things we can do intel communications and we are looking for opportunities there. pressl also continue to the cuban government on issues of political freedom. and when his holiness the pope comes, he will be visiting cuba. that will be an opportunity for more interesting conversations inside of cuba. my biggest suggestion would be to the prt to start -- brt start having conversations about lifting the embargo. it doesn't have to happen or even should happen all in one fell swoop.
but if you look at the opportunities that are presented, they are significant. it doesn't make much sense that a country 90 miles off the shore of florida that is not at this point a significant threat to us and that has shown itself look beyondt least its borders for the first time, even if it is still scared of what it might bring, it doesn't make sense for us to keep sticking to the old ways of doing business. i would like to take one more question and then i will come around and say hi to everybody. go ahead. >> thank you. i know a topic near to your heart has been education for young folks. many of us have done things, private partnerships.
you recently made a comment about computer science for all high school kids. technology is such a broad topic, it will infiltrate all jobs. to make somehance comments about how you envision something like that actually taking root over the long term that we could make some progress with it. commend jenny and ibm because you guys have done some significant work. anyone who wants inspiration, go ibm's high school that --ticipating in in brooklyn a collaboration between the public school system, the city colleges of new york, the cuny system, and ibm. neverf the kids' parents went to college.
and they are marching through stem education, pre-engineering education. they are getting essentially college credit by the time they are sophomores or juniors in high school. they are able to save money of highit in five years school they come out with an associates degree. they then either transfer to a four-year university with those credits or they start work with ibm because they have in apprenticing -- they have in apprenticing -- they have been apprenticing and they can get the job. lookingsomething we're to try to duplicate all across the country. the good news is because of the strong work that arne duncan has done, the strong work that a lot of governors and local communities have done to increase accountability,
creativity, have high expectations for kids, bust through some of the old bureaucratic obstacles, we are seeing highest reading scores, highest math scores, highest graduation rates. and part of our goal here is to improve stem education in general. a critical element of that is understanding this computer age that these kids are immersed in. just ton't want them know how to use their phone to play video games. i want them to know how that phone works and potentially code it and program it. i'm about the age where i think my high school -- just had liked the first coding class when i was maybe in seventh or eighth grade. you had like those cards.
the punch cards. now, the tools and resources that are available for kids starting in first or second grade -- we have these science fairs and these little girl scout troops come in and they have designed their own games or , entire towns with people, all kinds of scenarios that they have figured out. and so it's actually something they naturally gravitate to. we just have to start early. it is almost like a foreign language. rather than try to catch kids th,n they are in 10 11th, 12th grade, make it part of the broader curriculum and
incorporate it into how you teach math or social studies. that seems to be how kids get engaged. so we are doing a lot of work with many of you individually as companies on this stem education issue. continuehat you will to participate because you have been great partners on that front. closing, it'sy in always a pleasure to be here. reiterate as we enter into the silly season of that the primary thing that is holding back a lot of improved growth, jobs, bottom lines, greater stability,
is well within our control right now. and are things that traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. getting tpp done. on aning and executing infrastructure policy. i have had conversations with folks like larry fink and others, if we are open to looking at new creative ways of financing but the notion that we are not doing it right now makes absolutely no sense. investing in research and development. these are not partisan issues. there are some areas where there have traditionally been legitimate arguments between democrats and republicans. there are some issues. like on environmental regulations or financial regulations where jamie and i may disagree or nick and i may disagree. and we can have those arguments.
we probably won't convince each other on some of these things. but what i'm looking at is the low hanging fruit that are no-brainers and that nobody here would argue with. and the notion that we are not doing them right now, primarily because the faction within one of our parties has gone off the rails and sees a conspiracy around everything, or simply is opposed to anything i have proposed even if they used to propose it, that is a problem. and i think it's very important for all of you to just step back and take a look at it because you still have influence on at least some of those folks. and challenge them. why wouldn't we do things that
everybody knows make sense? thank you, everybody. [applause] >> we heard president obama talk about government funding set to run out at the end of the month. that is an issue the house is likely to take up when it returns this week, although nothing has been placed on the legislative schedule. it is possible members will consider a short-term bill to avert a government shutdown by weeks end. right now it is unclear when the senate takes action on such a temporary spending bill. the first item on their agenda this week is a bill to ban abortions after five months. at senate returns monday 2:00 p.m. eastern, the house returns thursday at 8:30 a.m. eastern. that is also the same day both chambers. for an address from pope francis who has a multi-day trip planned here.
here's a bit more on the pope's visit and our live coverage. >> the pope's visit to the u.s. c-span has live coverage from washington, d.c.. the first stop on the pope's tour tuesday afternoon at three zeta on c-span. on c-span. ceremony for the pope as the obamas officially welcome him to the white house occurs at eight: 45 eastern. eastern. coverage begins from capitol hill as he becomes the first wanted to address a joint meeting of congress. and friday morning, live coverage from new york as he speaks to the u.s. general assembly on c-span3, radio, and c-span.org. and he will hold a multi-religious service at the
9/11 museum. follow coverage at c-span.org. now some of c-span's road to the white house coverage with presidential candidate donald trump. he was at a town hall meeting in rochester a day after the cnn presidential debate. he spoke about that experience and took questions on several issues including immigration, veterans health care, and foreign affairs. this runs 50 minutes.
>> we love new hampshire. thank you everybody. what a great welcome. sit down, relax. we will be her for a while. -- we will be here for a while. you know, we just got back. we came from mobile, alabama. we had 31,000 people. 31,000. [applause] dallas, whereft we were in the great maverick's building. a great team, a wonderful team. and mark cuban was so nice. we know mark, right? good guy. [applause] and we said what about using the arena? 20,000 seats. they filled it up in two days. is that good?
[applause] i then flew from dallas, always making speeches. because we have to make our country great again, right? [applause] flew to a very nice place, los angeles. right? and we went to the uss iowa. and we were honored by a great veterans group which gave me an endorsement. they endorsed me. the vets like me and i love that vets. we have a lot of vets here tonight. [applause] we have a lot of vets but the vets on the uss iowa, that is some ship by the way. they don't build them like that anymore. they endorsed me. last night we had a little thing called the debate at the reagan library. and it was sort of an amazing thing.
we had an incredible time. [we love you!] thank you. [applause] that was some evening. i will tell you the problem with evening. we did so well that cnn said let's make it an hour longer. can you believe this? that debate was three hours. it felt like more than that. why did they do that? for the young children here because we have to teach them to be entrepreneurs. they wanted more revenue coming from the commercials. isn't that terrible? i think it's terrible. and the money should have gone to the veterans, right? [applause] they made a lot of money. it was an end incredible time and we had an incredible time. i got such great remarks -- look at this. we just wrote this down. time magazine did votes as to
who won the debate last night. so time magazine, 114,000 votes as of 6:00 p.m. trump 56. [applause] carly fiorina 19. [booing] rest 7, ben carson 4, the not doing too good. drudge. we love druge. donald trump, 51%. 668,000 votes cast. 51%. second, fiorina, much less. like, much. then rubio, then cruz, then i'm not going to mention the next name because i don't like him very much. [laughter]
donald trump first place by a lot. the street. donald trump 52%. that's a lot when you have all of these guys. it's not against two people. donald trump 52%, first place. then you have slate. and that's also donald trump. so we had a great time. you don't read about it much on television because coming out -- fox treated me shabbily. they treated me shabbily. but that's ok. cnn a little bit better. they treated me a little bit better. but the end result is people know what happened. it was an incredible time and we're going to do something very special. there is a great movement going on and it is a special movement. it is a movement when people want to see our country be great again. they want to see things happen. they want to see the right things happen.
they want everybody to get together, work, work. the people of new hampshire, you love to work, don't you? don't you love to work? [applause] a little news yesterday because he is a great person and a great winter. i love winners. we love winners, right? [applause] so a great winter, tom brady. tom brady. [applause] so tom is this incredible guy. total champion. didn't even want to tell me about it. he endorsed me yesterday. right? everybody up here knows that. [applause] when you are getting tom, you're getting a champ. there are others, i won't mention them now. we have so many people endorsing. it's very interesting. even knowt i don't
are just coming out in favor of trump because they want to see the right thing happened. when cnn did a poll recently they had a couple of different categories. one was leadership. in leadership i win like forget it. not even a contest. so much higher than everybody else. the other one is a little thing called the economy and jobs. nobody -- the only thing they didn't love was my personality. can you believe it? it's the only thing. so here's what happened. we went to dallas, we went to mobile, we went to the uss iowa making speeches all over the place. then we had the debate last night which was exciting. and i said you know what we're going to do tonight? let's to question and answer. so on just going to say a few words and than we are going to and answer you can
make them vicious, violent, horrible questions. even though you are probably on live television. every time i speak now it's on live television. it's a very simple business, ratings. if i didn't get ratings those cameras would not be on. ok? they would not be on. [laughter] [applause] questionou ask your remember you are on live television. we're going to make the military so strong, so great, so powerful. and we will probably never have to use it. who wants to use it? we have to have it. we need that military. we need that protection and we need that protection and we're going to have it if trump is elected president. that i can tell you. [applause] as part of that, because i consider it part, but as part of that, we are taking care of our veterans. ok?
and the veterans are going to be so happy. but they love me anyway. i don't have to do this. i'm just telling you. where's my man? stand up. have i been appear so many times? with my guy. we're going to take care of things. so many veterans in new hampshire are not treated right. they're not treated right anywhere. two weeks ago on wednesday, they had the longest wait in a waiting room that anybody can remember. they would wait three days, four days, five days. not going to happen anymore, folks. not going to happen anymore. not going to happen. [applause] we're going to come out with a plan. that kindave to wait of time, you're going to go to private practice, to private hospitals, even if it's public. we will take care of costs. andill be less expensive you will get much better service but you're not going to be waiting in rooms for five and
six and seven days to take care of a condition that can be done immediately. it's not been a happen. it's not going to happen. [applause] the other thing i want to dwell on for just two seconds. we're going to build a wall at the border. were going to build a wall. [applause] and people are going to come into this country but they are going to come in legally. they are going to be legal. they're going to come in legally into our country. [applause] so when i announced as you know a couple of months ago -- can you believe it? i have been a politician for almost three months. i never thought in a million years i'd be a politician. this time is going to be incredible.
you look not just at the new hampshire poll, 40%, but look at all the polls. it is absolutely incredible what we are doing. and what we are doing together. so immigration. and i have been saying it and the politicians all talk, no action. how many politicians are in this room? raise your hand. these are fabulous people. stand up. this is my guy who has been with me from the beginning. how about elected officials? how many elected officials? stand up. these are all fabulous people. especially you. so we are to do something and when the ball gets built, mexico is going to pay for it. love thexico and i mexican people. i do business with mexico. i do is know as with mexican people and entrepreneurs. i have many many people from hispanics working for me. many many many hispanics.
whether it is china or japan or mexico, they are outsmarting our leaders and we're not going to let it happen anymore. we're not going to let it happen. ok? we're not going to let it happen. [applause] about a week ago, i said, what is the trade deficit? united states trade deficit what is it with china? it's almost $400 billion. a year. we are losing almost $400 billion only to china. $75apan, it's close to billion every year. and it has been pretty steady. it is going up. why wouldn't it? they get smarter and smarter and we get dumber. then we get to mexico and it's about $45 billion. watch these politicians.
even people i'm competing against. you saw them last night. some are very nice, by the way. they say to me, you can't really do that. why would mexico pay? they won't pay. they will never pay. then i say, why wouldn't they pay? we send hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into mexico. you have a huge problem at the border where tremendous -- the drugs,rtels pour in with pour and with money. we are making a good deal there. -- we are not making a good deal there. the numbers are staggering. and people say, the wall doesn't work. you ask israel whether or not a wall works. a wall properly done -- a trump wall works. that i can tell you. [applause] but you know these guys, the
politicians -- and they are politicians, so i understand. i understand where they come from. my whole life i have dealt with politicians. they say, you can't get mexico to pay for the wall. it will never work. and i say why? why would they do it, because we are losing almost $50 billion. $50 billion a year on trade. why wouldn't they do it? it's peanuts. they say it's going to cost $10 billion or $12 billion. that's for people who never built anything. they have no idea. i will do it for much less and it will be bigger and better and stronger. people are not going to home depot and buying a ladder and walking up. not this wall. [applause] and by the way, this wall is going to have a big beautiful open gate. we will have a nice opening and when people want to come into this country legally and they want to go through the process, we all welcome them. is that a correct statement? we welcome them. [applause]
and when someone goes to harvard or stanford or the wharton school of finance or yale or any of them and they do great and then we throw them right out and they go back to a country and they try and compete and they do it very successfully. we want to keep those people. we want to keep people of talent. we want people of great talent. so we've got a plan in terms of illegal immigration. and remember this. when i first announced, and this was an incredible two weeks, believe me. rush limbaugh said i have never seen anybody receive more incoming -- that means really bad press. it was incoming. he said, i've never seen anything like it. and then he doubled down. he said, nobody would have done that. the problem.w i knew what was happening. and we have tremendous crime, whether it is in san francisco,
jamil in los angeles, the woman who was killed, a 66 you're a woman who was raped and sodomized and killed by illegal immigrants -- it's not going to happen anymore, folks. it's not going to happen. [applause] we are going to have a border and we are going to get the gang members out of here fast. you have a lot of gang members that are illegal immigrants. you go to chicago, these are tough dudes. we're going to get them out of here so fast your head boston. -- your head will spin. all right? your head will spin. [applause] so instead of making this speech, i'm going to take questions. don't be like that? -- don't we like that? [applause] i like this guy.
>> i'm from white plains. amen. we have a huge problem in this country. it's called muslims. we know our current president is one. he's not even an american. but anyway. we have training camps where they want to kill us. that's my question. when can we get rid of them? >> were going to be looking at a lot of different things. people are saying bad things are happening out there. we're going to be looking at that point of other things. go ahead. i have to ask you a good veteran question. welcome to new hampshire. last night was a disgrace. cnn did not touch on any of the issues that are going on with veterans health care. >> that's true. i actually asked them about that. there wasn't one question relating to the veterans. that's true. >> did anyone even asked him
why? i know it's the clinton news network. is it just that they don't like veterans? >> there was not one question relating to that. those days believe me are over. yes ma'am. go ahead. the economy and job market is a big issue. i just finished my masters degree and now during my job search, i am told i am either overqualified or underqualified. i believe the on employment rate is skewed. improve the do to t job market for people like me? qualified educated u.s. citizens? >> i get it all the time. it's an amazing question. we will be taking our jobs back from china and japan and all of these other places that have been ripping us for years. i've been talking about this for 10 years, 15 years.
no politician sees it. we are printing jobs back here. -- we are bringing jobs back here. maybe it's the question i get asked the most. people young, beautiful, great people go to college. in many cases borrow a lot of money to get through college. there are so proud of themselves. they do well, they are good students, they work hard. they get out and they can't get a job. is anrump, there expression. i will be the greatest jobs president that god ever created. i tell you that. [applause] that's what you need. ok. >> can you hire me, please? >> go ahead. let's go. i was wondering when we can get together and work on the unsafe conditions at the plant. it has been a month since i gave
you that information. >> i remember that. i remember you gave. >> and i think you and i should have a press conference because the governors are not protecting the first responders. and i would like to work with you on it. >> ok. will take a look at it. back here. >> i have a question about the trump wall. trump wall. [applause] that's what's going to happen. that's why i'm going to make this wall's are beautiful. because when i'm gone there probably going to change the name to the trump all. i have to make it beautiful. big and powerful and beautiful. go ahead. he said trump wall, i didn't. >> so we don't have a good record when it comes to paying
off debt. >> not such a good one. >> so how are we going to expect mexico to repay their debt? >> because they make a fortune off us. they make a fortune. they make so much money. they're taking our business. >> we also borrow a lot that we don't pay off. >> do you like oreos? i'm not eating them anymore. nabisco's closing their big plant in chicago and moving it into mexico. is building a plant in mexico. mexico is doing very well. we love them but they are doing very well. we need leaders that can deal with them and deal with all of the other countries. we need leaders that are smart and tough and cunning. i have carl icahn lined up. really tough smart people. and they are going to go and negotiate and make great deals
and bring jobs back so that you can get a job. ok? do you like that? ok. yes sir. >> welcome back to new hampshire. >> thank you. do you think it's hot enough in this place? last night was pretty hot. this blows away. the gentleman who brought up the muslim training camps here in the usa. the fbi knows all about that. >> right. >> but there are pointed at ordinary citizens here. >> don't get nervous. you are on about seven television networks. the agriculture. they're going into different ranches and shutting them down. all this regulation. but they seem to be pointing a gun to make sure they get their fees. this is our own government
putting us at siege. how can we get in and stop this? >> so many things are going to change. these are regulations. so many things. that's one. in real estate, we have army bases, navy bases. so many are for sale and so many have been sold. how many can we sell? i see it all the time. they come across my desk. things are going to change. go ahead. guy. handsome gentleman daniel tap bis -- >> he was my friend. he passed away. my -- one ofof america's rights to riches story. what can you do to bring that back? >> he became a really good banker.
and he was a friend of mine. he passed away a few years ago. he was a very successful guy and a great guy. and you are right. we will bring the american dream back. that i can tell you. we're bringing it back. ok? and i understand what you're saying. i get that from so many people. is the american dream debt? -- dead? they're asking the question. it is in trouble, i can tell you. it's in trouble. but we're going to get it back. how about the man with the beautiful red hat. stand up. what a hat. what does that say? make america great again. that's beautiful. beautiful. [applause] mr. trump, can you please explain your position on the second amendment? >> all for it. you need the protection. we had an incident new york
which was very interesting. the two prisoners that escaped from a maximum security prison? real beauty in new york. they escaped. people were really scared. these were killers and tough cookies. a man and a wife were in their home and the wife was totally anti-gun. she hated that the husband had guns. and the guy was pro-. he was a big second amendment guy. and all of a sudden, these two tough cookies, bad guys, are somewhere around their home. she all of a sudden now is because she was so happy that her husband had guns. and they never had to use it. [applause]
because remember only the bad guys use it. but they were secure. and now she's bigger than the husband in terms of wanting that. so i think that's pretty much what you want to hear. 100% pro-second amendment. yes sir. [applause] go ahead. >> i am a veteran of both iraq and afghanistan. >> good. wow. good shape. were you hurt at all? were you ever wounded? you look good. >> and ied blast and a couple of ground incident. of human a lot suffering on both the iraqi side and afghani side. what should the u.s. be doing for the humanitarian crisis happening in syria right now? >> you have a crisis that is massive. i'm getting that question a lot as of about two weeks ago. hundreds of thousands of people. there comes a point and we all
have to have heart -- i think i have as big a hard as anybody. but there comes a point where this country has to say, we have to get our own act together. we have to do it. [applause] when you are looking at isis and all the problems being caused over there, you say to yourself, what happens if a lot of these people are al qaeda, isis? you could have 15 different things -- you don't know. they don't know anything about them. with all that being said, europe has to help themselves. every once in a while. you can't always be the united states. we have our bridges, roads, or tunnels. we have problems here. we oh so much money. we japan. how do you do that? them money.
we have people that aren't very smart. china $1.4 trillion. you have the very rich gulf states. body.ake no they don't have anybody. they have to help. what i like is a safe soon. they have a lot of -- what i like is a safe zone. they have a lot of sand. you put it there, you have security. you create a little environment until they can ultimately go back to their homes which most of them really want to do. they're great people. they are caught in this horrible conflict. but the concept of safe zone is something that really make sense. probably they even like it that her. and we help them. but we have to help europe. and the gulf states have to
contribute. -- was making so much money beyond anything and beyond anybody's comprehension. all of these countries have to get together and fund it. we can do something. but we have to get other people to help us. we can't the the patsy. every time there is a problem -- and in the meantime our airports are third world. our bridges are falling down. have you seen the safety record on her bridges -- our bridges? roads are collapsing all over the country. we are a mess. we want to build our country and we want to help people on a humanitarian basis, but we have to do some things to help ourselves. it is time maybe for us to help ourselves. in the back. go ahead. let's go.
then i'm going to these people in the lousy seats. they are looking at the back of my head. [applause] they see that it's real. that's ok. plan torump, do you visit with the pope? >> while the pope believes in global warming, you do know that, right? [laughter] it's so hot in here, maybe i'll start to believe it myself. this room is hot. this room was not designed -- the air-conditioning was not designed for this many people. i like the pope. a lot of personality. good man. yes ma'am. go ahead. >> my name is helena. i have a house here in hampton. i worked very hard all my life. thearents came over during berlin airlift in march of 1950. they both had to work in the mills. my father became a carpenter and put us through school and here we are working hard, getting
social security. but my problem is that the people coming over here landing on the shore, they have no problem going in -- they get food stamps, they get housing, they get a lectern, they get all of this and it's coming from our social security money. [applause] and we are getting nothing. nothing. >> getting more and more excited. look at that. fiorina, she put our company in the ground. >> people may as well here it. people have to learn. i thought i would wait a couple of days until i exposed her business failure. but honestly it's so ridiculous. go ahead. tell me. >> i invested in my stock and i was forced to retire. >> headed up by whom? >> carly fiorina. the for hewlett-packard. i was buying stock to put into my retirement.
forced to retire 15 years ago, my stock wasn't worth point five cents. i lost almost half $1 million. that's what i planned on retiring and i got nothing. carly thing is sort of amazing because a lot of people don't get it. lucid was a disaster. it was a company that she ran prior to hewlett-packard. she was bought compaq, heading up hewlett-packard for a short while. and then made the decision to buy compaq computer. said thatt work there company was such a great company until she got involved and until she went out and made this horrible acquisition. and it just has destroyed the company. yesterday on the front page of the wall street journal, the that hewlett-packard is dropping about 30,000 jobs. they are still recovering. who knows if they are ever going
to recover. ad everybody says she made good speech yesterday. i don't get it. i'd get it. -- i don't get it. i think it's going to be a very big roadblock. when you look at trump. i built an unbelievable company. tremendous company. tremendous net worth. it's the kind of mentality you need in this country. [laughter] [applause] eight period of time. at least. democrats, i helped republicans. i helped whoever. i did everything. i use all of the laws of the land. i would buy a company, thrown into a chapter, and crept it, bankrupt it, beat the hell out of the banks. you have to do that. nobody talks about it.
leaders of the country have done the same thing and no one ever talks about it. but i have done great. and that is the kind of thinking you have to need. we will make it rich again. we will make it fantastic again. i will leave and then somebody else can blow it. but we have to save our country. so with carly, she did a terrible job. she did a terrible terrible terrible job at hewlett-packard. terrible job. stories have been written that are legendary. the head of the yield business school-- yale business wrote a story that was so brutal. and people are going to have to read this. she cut thousands and thousands of jobs and they are still cutting them. she made a horrible purchase because the compaq purchase was a disaster. but a lot of people don't know
before hewlett-packard, you had lucid and that was probably just as bad if not worse. >> mr. trump, i have not a question. i just want you to know about the nightmares i have. rochester's -- i'm having horrible visions of people i know. and everybody being loaded up into boxcars. like another holocaust. i just want you to know about that. you're welcome. >> does anybody have a towel?
i've lost a lot of weight. the good thing is running for president, every room we have is packed. and nobody has enough air-conditioning. and i'm losing a lot of weight. so it's not so bad. go ahead. will we meet your first lady? [laughter] >> that sounds good. [applause] that sounds so great. thank you darling. right here. aboutn you are talking deportation of illegal aliens, taking all the money out of the coffers, why is it that you don't identify how much it costs to keep them versus how much it costs to send them back? >> he's a businessman.
he's from new hampshire. it's such a good point. i made it last night but people don't want to hear it. spend really i would say $200 billion a year. on illegal immigration. i think the number is much higher than that. to get the bad ones out, to do the wall is peanuts, by the way. peanuts. the great wall of china is 13,000 miles long. 2000 ofhern border is which you really need 1000. so they say, you can't do it. and yet 2000 years ago they had no problem. great point.such a we have a cost of i believe in excess of -- we have numbers
that go from $175 billion to $250 billion a year. the fact is nobody knows. nobody knows how many illegals we have here. we have been hearing for years 11 -- it never moves. give me a break. it might be much more than that. we are a country of laws. we are a country of orders. we have to secure our border. and we are going to clean it up. we're going to make our country so strong and so wonderful and so great. you are right. there is a huge offsetting cost. which will really help out. ok. [inaudible] >> oh boy.
[booing] am i in trouble. am i in trouble. yes sir. thank you. go ahead. ok thank you. thank you. go ahead. go ahead. >> my question is this. president,elected one of the things that has been happening over the last several decades is our congressman and senators mode themselves -- voted themselves huge pay raises and other benefits. they get a lifetime pension.
they get medical. they don't have to join obamacare. --you are elected serv >> they don't have to use obamacare. towould you introduce a bill roll back these excessive benefits? and the people who don't vote for it will be fired? [applause] >> the first thing i'm going to do is tell you that if i'm elected president i am accepting no salary. that's not a big deal. [applause] the next thing is when these guys go to congress, a couple of things happen. they get benefits that nobody else can even think about. and they don't like to talk about it. but we will talk about that. we have bigger problems. that's peanuts on the relative scale.
but we are working very hard. we will have a system that is going to be fair to everybody. one of the things i'm doing that really has gotten a lot of praise -- i'm self funding. i'm not getting tens of millions of dollars. [applause] and it's very unnatural. it's very unnatural for me. in many ways i feel foolish. people,, they want to give you lots of money. interests,special donors. i'm the only one out of all the people running -- i talk about the hedge funds guys. we're lowering taxes in this country for the middle income. you're going to love me. we're lowering taxes. we're going to simplify, we're going to lower. we are coming out with an amazing plan. we are lowering taxes in our country. the hedge fund guys and others,
they are going to have to pay up. they are going to be paying. and that's ok. somebody said that's not very republican. i don't see anybody weeping in here. you are going to be very very happy when you see what we do with the taxes. when you see what we do with jobs, with economic development. >> hello. donald trump: don't get nervous. >> everyone has awesome questions big picture and my question is a little closer to home. i spent the last two-and-a-half years and $50,000 working to keep my daughter safe. my question to you is -- and the result could have been better. under your leadership and authority, you think that will trickle down to the state level and our court system to help families like mine not have to endure what i went through?
donald trump: did you say to keep them safe? >> it's over now. the family court system is broken. donald trump: i see. it is. very much so. i hear it is. the whole court system is broken, not just family court. look at what happened with justice roberts where he approved obamacare twice. you were talking about more than local. the answer is yes i think it , should be a local situation. i will give you an example -- jeb bush loves common core. [booing] donald trump: i want to see local people teaching kids. i want people from new hampshire, iowa, south carolina, i want to see local people taking care of your children's education and working instead of people from washington that in many cases could not care less. think of it. jeb bush -- just to use him as an example, because there are other guys ahead of him in the
polls by a lot, jeb bush is totally in favor and strongly in favor of common core and he's weak on immigration. how can you have him? you can't have to. i do not think he is going to do too well in new hampshire for iowa or anywhere else. go ahead. , over here, donald. donald trump: you go first. >> how are you doing? thanks for coming. we all know the gap between the rich and poor in this country is getting bigger and our american manufacturing is getting overseas with these horrible trade deals. how do you plan on bringing back american trade jobs and would you repeal nasa and how would you do with the tpp deal? donald trump: what is hurting us
is currency manipulation. that is answering that question. that deal is not the deal that should be made. i've not been a fan of nafta. your places happened stripped out of all new england. you know what has happened. they gone to mexico and all of the place. i have not and i've never been a fan of nafta. we are to bring our jobs back. we're going to have ford and these other companies -- instead of going down to mexico and lots of other places, lots of other places, we're going to have them built here. we're going to give the incentive the need to build to could go ahead, darling. >> i am megan and a volunteer e of a leagu conservation voters. i want to know what your plan is to reduce climate change and endangering public health. donald trump: let me ask you a question. let me ask you this. take it easy, fellas. how many people here believe in global warming?
do you believe in global warming? who believes in global warming? who believes in global warming? [chant and yells] who believes in global warming? raise your hand. wow, not much. do you have your hand up? no. nobody? one person? a rally wheres people do not believe in it. donald trump: we're going to do two more questions. let's go. go ahead. right here. go ahead. >> just last week, one of the
other candidates said that he thought the base realignment and closure system was good because it cap workers on their toes. do you believe the way to make people more efficient is to threaten to take away their jobs or are military and those who support a military? donald trump: you're saying that's what happened? i heard that yterday actually. not a good situation. ok, one more question. make it a good one. go ahead, ma'am. right here. you, go ahead. give her the mic. make it a good one, otherwise we will have to do one more. >> i would like to know your plans on social security. donald trump: we are going to save social security. we are going to save it. we're going to save social security. that was your deal, right? we're going to save social security. we are going to make life for the veterans better than it has ever been in this country.
>> and one of the questions posed to donald trump at this regarded event and caused a lot of conversation among the tenants. ben carson was asked about islam and his view on its place in politics. >> i guess it depends on what their fate is. if it is inconsistent with the values and principles of america, then it should matter. realm it fits within the of america and consistent with the constitution, i have no problem. do you believe that islam is consistent with the constitution? dr. ben carson: i do not. i do not advocate putting an
muslim in charge of the constitution. >> would you ever vote for a muslim for congress? dr. ben carson: it depends on what the policies are. if there is somebody who's of things inbut they say their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed and bring peace and harmony, then i am with them. long, c-spaname takes you on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies, and speeches. we are taking your comment on twitter, facebook, and by phone, and always, every campaign of that would cover is available on a website at c-span.org. leaders of the candidates
of three major political parties recently participated in a debate in calgary head of the october 19, 2015 election. there were asked questions about canada's economy, housing, and this is an hour and a half. ♪ >> my biggest concern about the canadian economy is that we continue to focus on the oil and gas sector. >> i will not be able to afford property in the city i want to live in. >> my biggest concern is retirement income after it could >. >> stable opportunities for young people. >> my biggest concern about the canadian economy is getting candidate off oil. ♪
>> the economy is the most critical ballot box issue facing voters in this federal election, making it the clear choice for the sole topic of the leaders that they. -- leaders today. >> turn this economy around. to bebusinesses were able to employ young people with meaningful living wages, what are you going to do to help those companies remain competitive in a global economy? >> the baby boomers, the largest age cohort in history, is transitioning to retirement and we need to ensure that they are well taken care of. given the widening gap between the wealthy and the rest of us, what specific measures will your government take to ?ddress this important issue >> my parents did it and my grandparents did, but i'm not able to. >> this would be the perfect
time to make bold investments in our collective future. >> now please welcome tonight's debate moderator, david longley. david: welcome to the "globe and mail" debate from calgary. we are coming to you from a studio audience and they join you, that the the viewing audience, and let us welcome the three party leaders. from the conservative party, stephen harper from the new democratic party, thomas muller care, and just ensure go. -- justin trudeau. [applause] david: there is little surprise
this election is about the economy. all parties i think an agreement that. with the country struggling to find its economic moshe, we have took questions for the leaders this evening. the first half deals with six topics -- jobs, energy and the environment,nfrastructure, immigration, housing, and -- taxation. each area will begin with a question from me to one of the three leaders with a follow-up question to that same leader. i will then push the question to a second leader for a quick answer before an open for debate. none of the three leaders has advanced knowledge of the question. only the broad things. the order of speaking in the positions on the stage randomly drawn party representatives. --t is the house cutie housekeeping. let's begin. the reason we are here tonight is to come to grips with this country's challenges. the first question goes to you, mr. harper, and the question is
on jobs. candidate is facing structural rather than cyclical change, do you have a job's plan for industry beyond taking things out of the ground? p.m. harper: absolutely. let me begin by saying that because we are in southern alberta, i want to take a moment to give my condolences to give blanchette and the dunbar families on the terrible deaths of haley and terry. these are obviously senseless acts and i know that everybody here across the country, our thoughts and prayers are with those families. approach is multifaceted. there'll several things we're doing. the centerpiece of our plan is to make sure we are making a practical investment that are affordable while keeping our taxes down and keeping our budget balanced, but there are number of things we're doing including a particular intervention in the labor market to make sure we're china people for the jobs that are available
and orienting our policies that way and making sure the are opening up trade markets. we sign more trade agreements that ever before. the court to protecting our economy is making sure our budgets remain balanced. david: the dreams of being an energy superpower have not been realized. for those worried about the jobs of the future, what comes next? p.m. harper: i laid out exactly where we are going. we are living in a very challenged global economy. we have enormous economic instability out there. through it all, the canadian economy has managed to create a large number of jobs -- a better record than anyone in the g7. one million net new jobs since the end of the financial crisis. it was in good industries. there are still challenges and we can do more, but the essence of our plan is making sure that we make investments we can afford.
the other parties are tried to tell us they will deal with the challenges of our economy, of our labor market, our international markets, by raising tactics and running deficits to finance bad sleep -- vastly increased amounts of spending. that is not the way to protect our economy in this environment. the way to protect our economy is to make specific investments that help build our labor force, build our infrastructure, build our manufacturing, lot the same time making sure we are keeping our taxes down and a budget balance. david: that is mr. harper's answer. to mr. mull care we go. we need to do more than surely supporting the manufacturing sector. what is your plan? m.p. mulcair: i was listening to mr. harper and he put all those eggs in one basket and drop the basket. there are now 300,000 more canadians without a job that when the recession hit in 2008
we have a plan to kickstart the economy and to grow manufacturing jobs and work on innovation. ofwant to drop the taxes these medium-size businesses because they create 80% of new jobs in this country and we also want to help people get ahead and make their lives easier. making sure that you can balance your work life and your family life is important to be. that is why one of our key planks in this platform is to bring in quality, affordable childcare across canada -- at most $15 a day. once it is fully wrapped up, that would be one million of what will childcare spaces across the company -- country. it would be good for the economy and good for women. it's almost always to women who make tough sacrifices. mr. trudeau, can you leave this part of the debate? i want tor: m.p. trudeau: start off with a few questions. are you better off now than when stephen harper became prime
minister? is our country better off? do we have better job prospects? are you confident we have a better future. i have talked to canadians across the country and mr. harper may not see what is going on, but i did. canadians are worried about their jobs and that is what this election is about. their jobs and jobs the kids are going to have. -- trudeau mr. trudeau: we need a strong and clear plan to invest in the middle class, grow the economy, given the kickstart it needs and put more money in canadians pockets. that starts with raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% so we can lower them for the middle class. it starts with investing in canada once again -- inroads, include water -- and clean water, in transit, and in jobs. when we talk about that investment, we are very clear.
we going to run three modest deficits in order to pay for it. those of the kinds of investment that mr. harper has not made for 10 years to if you think this economy is doing great, the mr. harper is your guy. but if you need a change, the liberal party has a plan. p.m. harper: i never said that things are great, but we are living in a very unstable global economic environment i would ask the people at home the following -- in the last 10 years, where would you have rather have been in this global instability rather than canada? looking forward, where would you rather be than canada? these are the key questions. mr. trudeau proposes a permit deficit. to our post for example cuts for small businesses. the reason he said he was opposed to small business cuts is he said a large percentage of small businesses are just wealthy people avoiding taxes. , small business is the backbone of the middle-class and it to backbone of the
canadian economy. mr. trudeau: mr. harper, you know full well that the liberal party plan is to drop small business taxes from 11% to 9%. he is just playing politics. we have a plan not only to encourage small businesses, but to invest in what small businesses need like reliable transportation, like a growing economy. mr. harper has not only the --st growth record on jobs the worst job creation record since world war ii, but the worst record on economic growth since the great depression. we need to grow this economy. david: you're hearing a good dingdong between these two. where are you? mr. mulcair: i'm going to try to bring the bill. while mr. harper thinks everything is just fine the way it is, mr. trudeau is proposing to dump tens of billions of dollars in new debt on the backs of future generations. the prime minister wants to hit the snooze button on mr. trudeau is hitting the panic button.
canadians deserve to know what they're voting on in this election could we have put the numbers out there and we put out a plan yesterday. reliable andy sustainable. we put out numbers that neither of these will do the same. at least we should respect the voting public and let them have an informed decision and the selection. david: do you agree with that? p.m. harper: both of these parties talk about cutting taxes for small businesses. doing small business tax cut that we are already moving yearsd for the next four did what they also propose and small businesses know around the country, they proposed hikes to payroll taxes could it is also employment insurance that are 10 times bigger than the tax cuts they are promising small business. that is why the canadian federation of independent business has come out against these plans. that is why the canadian federal -- federation of independent mulcair'ssays that mr.
tax increases will cost up to you to not protect the economy. david: mr. trudeau, please. mr. trudeau: mr. harper has demonstrated once again he is missing the point. canadians need support. the fact that he is talking about pensions as taxes -- why texas are tensions? when people retire, they get their pension money back. they do not get their tax money back. r needs to hit the wake-up call. david: quickly respond and a sentence and we will come to mr. mulcair. p.m. harper: we have given tax incentives and people are taking advantage of them. workers and small employers do want these tax hikes. when you say they are not tax hikes, they're coming right out of the paychecks. a thousand dollars for the liberal party proposal to someone making $60,000 a year.
it comes out of putting food on the table. .avid: mr. mulcair the averager. mulcair: canadian knows that a pension plan is mrs. a. we view it as an investment in the future. i am tired of watching success of liberal and conservative governments don't these massive ecological and social debts on the back of future generations. that brings us some relief to the end of the first quest. we move onto to the second topic -- energy and the environment. this question goes to mr. mulca ir. in the last campaign, we put a cost of $21 billion on the carbon policy. what is your current proposal and what wil with the cost be for current animations --
omissions? mr. mulcair: we know it is crucial for years to come and canada has international obligations to follow through on. the liberals sign kyoto with no plan. that is why they had one of the worst records in the world for greenhouse production. stephen harper has made the only country in the world to withdraw from the kyoto protocol. this is exactly what we are talking about. we have always believed that the best way to ensure reduction in greenhouse gas is what is called the cap and trade system. canada and united states had a successful model in that to reduce as o2 when it was causing acid rain on a force. it has worked before and it can work again. we have to understand that there are tens of thousands of jobs here inhe country and alberta that rely on that sector and we need to understand that we had to develop our resources responsibly and sustainably, which is exactly what i did when i was minister .
david: what is the costing for your carbon emission proposal? is it cap and trade similar to ontario and quebec? what would the cost be? mr. mulcair: i do not think you can guarantee a reduction with a carbon tax. there is more more information available. a cap and trade system can guarantee a reduction. these are basic principles of sustainable development. have to make the polluter pay for the pollution they are creating. you cannot let people use the air and soil and water. david: would that not create revenue hemorrhaging and other to tie with ontario and quebec? mr. mulcair: that is not happen when we brought in the cap and trade system that was causing acid rain. you can reinvest in green energy technologies around the world. the will be $5 trillion spent on green energy technologies in the mexican years. canada is not going to be part of it because we have a government that has taken a risky approach on our
assessments to other places people have to take a different approach. add jobs here in canada. david: is it going to be more than $21 billion or less? mr. mulcair: that was something propose last time and the cap and trade system we are proposing now has no such proposal. david: let us move now to mr. trudeau. for your plan, it looks like a lot of it is left to the promises. ,ow do you leave the country perhaps going to the young climate conference later this year, without a canadian policy? a canadian: we have policy and it's one that recognizes that for 10 years under mr. hartley -- mr. harper with no leadership that provinces have moved forward. provinces havet committed a price to carbon. it makes mr. mulcair's proposal so unrealistic to the idea of proposing a democracy out of ottawa and on provinces like british columbia that heavenly forward with a world-renowned carbon tax that is working for
them is actually a complete nonsensical plan. we are committed to working with the provinces to reduce emissions and encourage them to hit those targets needed so we can contribute as a responsible country once again to reducing emissions. we will go to paris for the climate change conference with all premiers to talk about how we are going to meet that responsibility we collectively share on this planet to prevent a two degree increase in global temperatures. david: i think we're hearing a lot of skating. let us go to the conservative leader mr. harper, you start off field and floor -- the ". p.m. harper: this is the first government in canadian history to see reduction in our greenhouse gas omissions by the same time seeing the economy grow. we are very proud of that. we did not do that to carbon tax institute carbon taxes are not about reducing emissions. carbon taxes are about raising revenue for the government. in one form or another, that is what the other parties are .roposing t
we have been moving forward with a regulatory approach where we know the cost and effects of putting in new relaxers -- regulations. it is not just left to chance. i do want to address the other half of the debate, which is the energy sector. it has been a very important driver of the canadian economy. it is obviously having a significant downturn right now because of the fall of energy prices. that sector needs a government that is on its side. we want to see the sector grow and develop. david: under stephen harper's stewardship, we have not built one kilometer. mr. mulcair: it is easy to understand why did he has a whole series of environmental laws. do not have a thorough environmental process in this country. the public is not on site. he thought he was helping the energy compass by destroying that legislation, but he has made their lives to forget when i was the minister in quebec, i lower greenhouse gas production in our province every year with
the three years i was minister of the environment. it can be done. we brought in overarching sustainable legislation, the toughest north america. we change the charter rights to include the right to live in a clean environment. it can be done. as for harper's is the environment and economy as polar opposites. everyone in canada knows you have to work on both of the same time. david: you are the only leader in canadian history to go to another country. p.m. harper: you argue against canadian jobs and canadian development. that is exactly the opposite, mr. harper. he just said something to me and i'm going to answer them. 40,000 canadian jobs and be exported to the united states with keystone xl. that is not our figured it is a government of canada's figure under mr. harper. i want to create those 40,000 jobs in canada. let us add value to our natural resources here. that is the way to sustain the moment. david: hold on.
let us go to mr. trudeau. mr. trudeau: mr. mulcair talks about being the minister of environment and quebec. i was living in quebec and he was producing both water exports to the united states. mr. mulcair: completely false. mr. trudeau: you gave a speech on that. look at your own record. the fact is that mr. harper continues to pretend that there is a choice between environment and economy. he chooses to say that you cannot though that strong economy if you're still protecting the environment. that has been his failure and that has been his favorite -- failure felt right here in calgary. he talks about the the best friend that calgary or alberta has ever had. he is not gotten quite once built. he has made the oilsands an international pariah. with friends like stephen harper, alberta doesn't need enemies. david: what is the cost of your plan, mr. mulcair first?