correct this we have a 67 page opinion, a lot of work went into that figure seems to me if we put about as much work and focus into the fix, then we will have something at the end of august to act on. .. >> thank you.

>> actually before we have the panelist sit down, we'll go ahead and have you up to be sworn. actually we'll give them an opportunity to tally in. >> welcome, you affirm that the testimony you're about to giver to the committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you you maybe seated the panelist my daniel bryan

professor and mr. miller former inspector general and current ri -- currently works as managing director. welcome, we'll start with you. >> thank you senator founded in 1981pogo observed as congress eyes and ears of congress. an ig office must have unrestricted view of the agencies that it oversees. i will argue it is those documents an agency hesitates to provide that maybe do most important for the ig to have.

the very purpose of having an incomment ig is undermind if the office has to seek the agency permission. chairman grassley and other leaders have condemned the llc's opinion. ig cannot possibly be affected if they're forced for access to their records. professor said that treats doj above the law. we're particularly concerned

about the consequences of whistleblowers as wes -- was raised by you senator tillis. but with understandably fear communication with the ig would itself be a prosecutable offense. if followed the opinion would force ig and retaliation. the fbi delayed access in whistleblower investigations. as it turns out, this is not the first time the olc has challenged the authority of

federal watchdogs. prior to the passage of the act op -- opined that it would violate the separation of powers doctrine. and as we've heard the effects are already felt beyond the doj now the congress and the irs demonstrating it has consequences for offices across the federal government. they face other barriers as well. under section the doj is required to refer any allegations of misconduct to an internal investigative unit or

opr. based on data pogo found that opr documented hundreds of cases of intentional misconduct by doj attorneys over the past decade. opr does not release identifying information in its record unlike the inspector general meaning we have no way of knowing if anyone was held accountable. it's hard enough for the dojig. it's harder to held accountable when it's leg ally restricted when wrong doing by alleged personnel. it has the authority that would require access to information concerning sensitive operations. top officials at other agencies including the secretary of defense, the secretary of

treasury postal services board of governors and homeland security have similar powers under the law. this provision gives us at pogo pause. we only know of one instance of this provision by the attorney general, but we believe the congress should ask the gao to review how often it has been revoked by agency heads. i will highlight only a few. obviously congress should clarify all means all. it should be given exclusive authority to investigate misconduct throughout the agency including allegationses of misconduct. senator, it addresses data and

agencies and finally congress should continue to put pressure on the white house and agency heads to fill agencies. thank you for inviting me to testify today. we look forward to working with the committee and ensuring that oversight is fair and effective. >> it is such a pleasure to testify before this committee and the chairman in particular who is from iowa and i'm from south dakota, so i trust you'll be gentle. although, we don't think -- i have a couple of statements. i'm pretty much to the point. number one i am extremely familiar with the legislative

record of this act dating back to 1976, that particular statute accomplishing the hewoij which is now mentioned in the llc opinions. i know the history. i'm not a legal scholar but i'm a legislate i -- legislative historian. i will say it is wrong. absolutely wrong. when i start my classes at nyui tell all of my students that they have an a and will give them an a if they can hold it. now you would be surprised perhaps, perhaps not at how many students seek to give it back. i think in this particular it has given it back. they worked hard to construct

the opinion. they really did. i wasn't intimidated by that. i give them an a for effort. they worked very hard to make the case that there are conflicting statutes. my conclusion is that there are no conflicting statutes at hand, that the ig act is plain intent contains provisions that require the igs to pay attention and use integrity with regard to any statutes that might require nondisclosure. and the nondisclosure issue is not at all in conflict with access to information. there are plenty of disciplinary procedures in place for the attorney general to stop an

investigation if he or she should see the need the need to prevent disclosure by the igs. that to me raises the question of why the senate and house would have given the attorney general such extraordinary power to halt, prohibit in the language of the 1988 special provisions to prohibit an audit investigation and issue by subpoena if the ig didn't have information by right under statute. why did it request such information if at that time did not believe that it would have such information. it makes no sense to me. nevertheless, we all know that

this opinion will spread through the ig community and through the departments and agencies like crop circles in corn fields, and it has. you must do something but i don't think it's a sophisticated heavily negotiated act having drafted plenty of legislative reports when i was here as a staffer and fellow, iurge to go slightly. the opinion from me is in the attorney general's statutory authority to supervise in this case direct control, and control the inspectors general. that where this comes from.

you might amend the statute that this particular authority does not include withholding. let me just conclude. i mean, we can talk and question and answer about this, that the key conclusion in this opinion is that section 6.1 permits withholding. now my adebe reader on my computer works, i think. and i searched every last record that i had every last hearing every last legislative report, congress report, the legislation, i cannot find the word withholding used or granted as a tool of prevention. the attorney general has the authority to prevent disclosure of sensitive information but not through withholding not

through withholding. these statutes are not in conflict which renders opinion of little interest, unnecessary unless it is taken up by other agencies in the department of justice and used to propel, dense complex negotiations that themselves will constitute a violation of the ig statute which prohibits or encourages the ig, i should say to prevent fraud, abuse and proament -- promote economy and efficiency. this is an easy fix from my perspective of reading the record. last point not a legal scholar but i am a legislative historian

and i know this record better than llc from my reading of the opinion. it's wrong on my points. it misinterprets on many areas and draws the wrong conclusion. that a that i would give my student that you move as you go through the report. >> thank you profess -- professor. >> thank you for your long standing in interest in oversight. it's a pleasure to see so many of my former colleagues behind me in the audience. this shows how important this issue is to the entire ig community. after serving in the department of justice for about 15 years, i

had the honor of serving of inspector general of the administration when i was confirmed in 2005. i served until last year 2014, and i consider myself fortunate to have served with so many principle public servants and brilliant attorneys and others who work diligently in the ig community. i too am concerned about the impact about the llc opinion. i'm concerned about the policy impact and i think we heard something very curious a little while ago. even the doj officials did not seem to defend the llc opinion. in fact, at one point the representative of the deputy attorney general stated a different policy. he stated that this information should go to the ig.

i find that very curious that not even doj is supporting this opinion. but generally everyone supports oversight. we need to have oversight of how they spend money how they keep our most sensitive and private information. that's why we have igs. and to withhold one of the important tools that an ig has will have devastating results. not just for the doj/ig but igs. it's going to make it more difficult.

but they also want someone to oversee those agencies to make sure that they are using that information in the proper way, not misusing our most private information. and so they want igs to get that information. i think that is the policy that has been stated in the previous hour. that's the policy that everyone seems to gee to -- agree to, if i heard the representative even he stated that. so in order to have effective oversight and ig must have independence to conduct investigation, review or audit. this includes determining what information is needed. in making this determination it is the judgment of the ig conducting the investigation that matters not the judgment of the agency being

investigated. the opinion reverses that process and makes the judgment of the agency being investigated control the judgment of the ig. that's exactly backwards. to deny the ig information that is needed to reach a conclusion or finding, it is misguided. it's like try to go build -- trying to build a bridge over and saying you can't have the rest of the material. it just doesn't work. it's disaster. the ig must have all the information to make accurate conclusion and finding. >> i'm going to call on you first. >> the result of the current procedure at doj will stall doj/ig investigations while they meet and rule on the ig's access

to this information. they will not get the information they need. an investigation that doesn't get information will stall. just like a car that doesn't geed -- get gasoline, will stall. ig has problems getting information from officials. legal issues are raised to block ig inquiries. many of them work out because they are unfounded. many of those are based on privacy issues. ultimately the ig gets the information but the investigation or audit is slowed down. in fact, back in 2009 and 2008 we were having difficulty getting unrestricted read-only

access to electronic databases at doj. the process was much similar to this in that what the agency wanted to do is shift the burden to the ig to prove why we needed to information. so our auditors were filling out forms and trying to explain why we had the right to need to know. when i found about this and found about delays in our audits i had a series of meetings, we ultimately worked it out but it was a difficult issue that we had to work through and i recommended at the time in that article that there be a legislative fix to clarify that all ig have unrestricted, real-only access to all

electronic databases. i still think that would be helpful. the language is already clear that all means all. i urge the committee that all means all. thank you very much. >> i'm going to ask my questions when he's done. >> you mentioned that we should go light on the legislative. we are where we are on a grade on the report that maybeless -- less than an a because you disagree with their conclusion, what does a light fix mean in your opinion? >> i think many statutes as you know contain definition of key

terms. the definitions at hand here which need to be defined, i think, to dispose of this issue -- and i give the loc an a for effort. i think the chairman said that -- one of your colleagues that it was really effort to how to make statute speak to this issue. but in terms of the outcome no. so look you've got to define what the notion that agency had information that could withhold is not dependent. it stands on the notion that the

agency from the attorney general oversee control and direct at least that's how i read the opinion, therefore you have to say nothing in that provision maybe interpreted to give the attorney general or any agency head authority to withhold information under section -- the full access of the section. i think you need to define all a little more perhaps. i mean, you know, the opinion is on point regarding supreme court decisions, regarding the broad nature of the word. i don't agree. i think all means crucial and fundamental and the senate and house worked very hard to say how important this was. go ahead and give loc some help.

i strongly believe that this mem memorandum should be with withdrawn. it's not good to issue an opinion that is so tangled. it doesn't help their reputation in future memorandum but that's not something you can order and would want to order. it's very simple, i think. >> you have anything to add? >> i would add that i like the language suggested by the counsel, the inspectors general of integrity and efficiency that it reads that a provision would provide, quote no law or provision restricting access to applies to inspector general. extends to all records available

to the agency regardless of location or form, end of quote. >> thank you. in the prior panel's testimony and in your opening statements, i think it seems to me that we all have agreement that we need to fix it even within the department. you made a comment that i'm concerned with, we can work real hard and have intensive negotiations but it doesn't seem that it's that difficult. the month that we are spending now, we need to come up with a simple fix not a thousand dollar saddle on a one-dollar horse. i won't ask anymore questions except those involved in this keep it siemple. -- simple.

thank you mr. chairman. >> yeah, before i ask questions i know that senator has questions to both panels, so expect that. so up to one week we'll take questions for answer in writing. you've all had a chance to read the opinion and hear the testimony on the first panel my first question to all three of you, what do you think the weakest link of the opinion is, ms. brian. >> they are ignoring the fact that the senate said all.

there's a question did any mean any to same willful disregard to what congress' intent was. >> so dealing with a blanked exemption from the priefs -- privacy act. congress did not intend full access. they deleted the statute with language or provision. it reached that by saying that deletion allows withholding. the deletion was an effort to clean up the statute.

the senate is looking at the statute and saying you know, this provision is unnecessary. it's kind of insulting. the senate was concerned about the justice department's objections, there was a 1977 memorandum that was very intense about the unconstitution concept these saiments -- statements that congress did not mean access to all. we were cleaning up certain features of this act. you reverse the order it looks like a dramatic moment of great consideration to dump this provision in an effort to say all does not mean all. i found that the most disturbing actually because you're

reordering history and that's absolutely not acceptable. >> we are looking for the language that would make it clear enough that they get access belonging to respective agency. you can answer both of those right now mr. miller. >> thank you mr. chairman. the weakest part is when it deals with appropriation language section 218. i think that was clear and i think the -- the discussion of the opinion that's probably do weakest part. to make it clear, they do have language in various parts of the opinion, i believe on page 46 or so it talks about the notwithstanding language. it mention that in a number of places on page, i think it begins on page 45 but mainly on

page 46. it talks about other statutes that would not apply because it has language notwithstanding any law or notwithstanding any statutory prohibition, et cetera, et cetera and then at tend it talks about a clear statement being clear manifest and i think any sort of fix will have to be clear. back on page 56, 57 of the opinion and again the problem with not with standing any other law is you run into this problem that you mentioned, mr. chairman, that there are so many laws that, you know, if you try to list them all and say

they don't apply what if you forget one or what is one is passed after the statute? so, you know, i do think that the counsel of integrity and efficiency did come up with some pretty good language, and i quote that language in my written testimony at the end, and that typically says -- actually i don't have it in front of me right now. i read it earlier. but that language was very clear and says -- here it is. no law or provision restricting

access to information applies to inspectors general unless that law says restricted access extends to all records available to the agency regardless of location or form period. >> i think i'm going to end with this question. your organization is an leading advocate for transparency and accountability, at the time we see importance of having watchdogs within each agency that are truly independent what do you think would be the opinion going forward if we don't fix the legislative? >> thank you senator grassley. that gets to the point of how our biggest concern is the

impolitic -- implications of whistleblowers. not only will they have concerns about coming forward, this is going to ample fie the problem but it's going to prevent the protection of those whistleblowers, which is what we're hoping they're going to be more capable of doing going forward. sue -- so we see as unnecessary in some cases. if it's wrong they should just with draw it. but we all know that the agencies will be able to take advantage of what they want to see from the opinion and as a result we do need the congress to fix this or we're not going to get the kind of oversight from the oig's.

>> yeah. i want that thank the people from the ig offices. thank you all very much. we intend to fix this. we will get it fixed and we will have ig's do their job which is very important. they're very essential that take the constitution responsibility seriously. they are a very important part of it. thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> visit historic sites to hear from historians, authors.

american history tv on c-span3 with congress in recess this month you can find it each day 6:00 p.m. eastern. today we will learn about fort lauderdale florida. they talked about energy, environment, economy foreign policy issues and u.s./canada relations. ♪ >> the longest election campaign in modern canadian history has

begun. we don't know that will happen again before you vote. i don't think they know, but while they're here lets make them work. the leader of the liberal party elizabeth, leader of the green party, leader of democratic party and steven, leader of conservative party. tonight's debate will cover subject of the voter's mind, economy, energy, foreign policy and security. each segment will begin with questions from me to one of the leaders. then another leader will respond to the first followed by an

extended discussion among all the leaders. we will go through that process twice for each of the four subjects. everybody here knows that order but nobody in any of the parties has seen or heard the questions i'll be asking tonight. the parties have agreed that at any point i could intervene the directed conversation. so lets begin with our first topic the economy. >> one subject on everybody's mind the economy.

♪ ♪ >> the first question goes to liberalof leader justin. cad -- can -- >> the price of oil is down. your economic plan is by middle-class tax break. is that really a response? >> the approach that mr. harper simply not works for can -- canadians. that's not happening. that goes to the heart of the question that's being posed in this election campaign.

is steven harper's plan working for you? we're the only country in g-7 in recession right now. there's no plan to get out of it and we just found out that wages are falling as well. i know you feel that at home. that's why we put a plan to strengthen the middle class. we are theth only party that's committed t in lowering taxes by asking the wealthy to pay more tax. i'll be glad to talk about tonight. when you put money in the pockets of middle-class canadians the economy grows. >> median has been on the rise since 1990. do you have a solution to a problem that isn't really there? >> not at all. if you spend any time crossing the country as i have talking to

people who are worried about saving for retirement or worried about having to making choices and paying for their kid's education, people are worried. we need solutions for that. it's bring a fresh approach, a new plan and a great team to actuallys change the course, because the only risk right now would be sticking with what has been a failed plan for ten years. >> again, as the luck of the draw has it theyo first to respond is steven harper. >> well, paul, lfiet me just correct a few facts. the context is this, over the past ten years a period of economic instability. weon have seen canada has the strongest economy growth, the strongest job creation record and highest income growth of the

middle class. whatmo we face right now lets be real clear, over 80% of the economy is growing. in fact,ng our exports are up 10% this year. where we have weaknesses, we are going to have growth going forward. the way you deal with it is sticking with a plan that's works, low tax, proven plan that's working rather than go to a plan that's high taxes, high debt which is failing everywhere else. >> you've compared canada under liberals, you called their tax increases, do a few changes in tax the margin have a change?

>> the other parties are proposingli tense of -- tens of billions of dollars. >> that's not true, senator. >> look around the world countries that are in that position have not recovered. this country has had best performance and best prospects going forward. that's whyie we should stay on course. >> thank you mr. harper. what do you think? >> canadians work hard to make ends meat. that's how i was raised. there are 200,000 more unemployed today then when the crisis hit in 2008. mr. harper's plan simply aren't working, weis know that. we have a plan to invest in the middle class and create new jobs. we want at to invest in

infrastructure, we want to give a break to med -- medium-sized corporations. we disagree. we want to create 1,000,015-dollar a day expenses. that's good for the economy as well. i was in' the debate, of course, mr. harper prime minister, we were the two that were there. ith recall clearly that mr. harper was talking about if there's going to be a recession, aren't we in one already. it's the wrong time for measures. weti need to build up canada's investment. there hasn't been investment, not from the private sector. we need to make sure that this economy doesn't sputter to a

halt and if we stay with mr. harper's risky plans that's where we're headed. >> lets be clear whatha the record is. webe have 1.3 million best record by far in the g-7. that's why we have manufacturing and other sectors outside of energy that a bre now expanding because -- because we were able, we have a balanced budget and make investment in infrastructure. now is not the time to start to spend tens of billions of dollars we don't have paid for by -- >> the reality is canadians know the times are tough. you have become disconnected from the reality that people are facing across theon country. the plan isn't working and we know. the risk will be sticking with your plan.

it's not necessarily good at answering the own questions to him. what n we see is that he's put forward plan for 15-dollar minimum wage. he's talked about it across the country. he's misleading canadians. giving false hope. it will help less than 1%. that is simply internal -- >> under mr. truto's plan -- >> 400,000 well-paided manufacturing jobs lost during his mandate. the jobs that are being created

are mostly part time jobs. the quality of jobs being created today is at the worst level in a full generation. >> let me give you the facts. 90% of the 1.3 million net new jobs created are full-time. 80% are the private sector. two-thirds are in highway industries. that's why incomes have been growing in this country when they haven't in other countries. they want to increase taxes, a hit of a thousand dollars for every worker making $60,000 a year and other thousand dollars to employers to keep them on the payroll. >> you have chosen to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67

which is taking tens of thousands of dollars to vulnerable seniors. canadians know that you have let them down because you continue to give benefits and tax breaks to the wealthy canadians. our plan is to focus on the middle class. 315,000 kids out of poverty and stop sending government checks to -- >> we have brought the largest increase in 25 years. ween brought an income for pensioners. they appreciatens it.

>> mr. harper -- >> were generous. >> we're not halfway done. misleading and none of the other parties have talked touching income for seniors. >> you promise to take it away from families. there is no reason pensioners should believe your change in story. >> you are cherry picking your data. it isn't relevant compared to g-7el nations, and comparing us to germany, france, compared to other economies we are doing very poorly indeed. we are in a recession under your watch for the second time. >> i think the fact that we are able to bring an immigrant --

immigrant join the economy that'snk part of economic plan. investment in infrastructure and in immigration to help draw the economy. that's why we have better results. >> let me close out the segment. >> thank you paul. >> what he fails to mention is that he's run up eight deficits in a row. $150 trillion to canada's debt. last week in just one day he spent over a billion dollars honestly mr. harper, we really can't afford another four years of you. >> wen' have a budget that's balanced now and other countries don't. >> i appreciate that. that wraps up the first round of questions on the economy. we're only half done on the subject alone. the next question goes to the green party.

that's a long-term project. canada iers facing trouble right now. what can the fort worth do now -- federal government do now to address problem now? >> excellent' question. we have oa lot of economic activity. we are seeing sectors rebound and export. our dollars shouldn't keep declining. we can't just sit back and say that the economy is going to fix itself. we need investment from the public sector. we need to invest in private action plan. we need an army, contractors going out to plug leaky buildings. that's 30% of carbon pollution comes from the money we waste heating outdoors. that's $123 billion. we need to get at it as our

bridges and roads are crumbling. >> can you recreate and budget balance -- >> i would defer with prime minister, we are not going to see a balanced budget this year. the budget office just put out its new figures. i wouldn't condemn them.dget i said, really this fixation is being driven by the political imperative that the conservatives created by saying in the last election we will give you goodies to balance budget. they want today book the sale thate general motor shares.

we're not going to see a balanced budget. i don't condemn them for that. it's far more serious than $150 billion of federal debt accumulated under this prime minister. >> thank you. once again first leader to respond -- >> i have a start-kick plan. we asked with only 8%. that's not going to work. we will put our effort there instead of what mr. trudo and harper have done. we're going to champion manufacturing innovation including green energy technologies which is a

investment. we will help the middle class because it is good for families and good for the economy with 1,000,015-dollar a day child care spaces across canada. >> the challenges that we are facing is about creating growth. one of the things that are so concernin' is it's a time in the recession where we need more growth, we need to create more jobs. so his plan to high corporate taxes is pandering to the people who like to hate corporations. we need that growth. we need those job creation. you're right the money does have to come from some where. that's why i can't understand why asking the wealthy to pay more tax so we can give a tax break to the middle tax. >> the real question is after those tens of billions to the

richest corporations, where are the jobsil if that's such a good plan?er >> on income tax increases, they will have a tax rate. how are they going to be able to attract and retain top-level medical doctors when they're going to be told our tax is now going to be close to 60%. we think that canadians are paying their fair share. >> and absolutely. when he cut those corporate taxes, he said these corporations werees job creators. they satjo on that money. they called it the dead money. $630 billion in cash. astonishing is not being used.

it's appropriate to raise the tax rate and we should do it as quickly as possible so we have money to invest in getting the economy moving again. >> lets be very clear on the tax record. yes, we have created the lowest tax environment for business investment across for g-7 that's one of the reasons we have the highest employment growth. we cut taxes not just for big businesses but small businesses. the reality is not only did these tax cuts help create jobs but our tax revenues went up from the business sector. we've done the same thing for people. we have cut tax across the board with a vast for middle and low-income cana -- canadians.

>> mr. harper is once again issuing the responsibility that he has for the fact that he has eight deficits. he continues to try and tell people that we need to stay the course. the people t at home know that. they know the economy is not working for them. the way to create growth in the economy is to strengthen the middle class make sure people have jobs and confidence and a capacity to spend and -- and be sure about the future that they're building. mr. harper has continued to give tax breaks to the wealthiest and that's not helped the economy in anything. that's why canada is growing less and less fair. they're looking for a change and

better approach and a better plan. >> lets be clear, we have the lowest debt level in the g-7 by country file by far in the best fiscal situation. in almost every development country they are rising in significant part because of tax breaks we have given to middle and low-canadians. >> back in 2008 mr. harper was misleading. we were in the worst recession since the 1920s. he's trying to hide the fact that we are in deficit. it is a deficit. it is $150 billion that he added

to the debt. his creation record is worst than the second world war. >> the reality is the department of financial showed that this year we are in surplus that fact we ahead -- >> if the past five months those statistics have shown the economy has s hr unk. according to to a lot of observers we are already in a recession. >> if i can just -- >> i am not denying that. what i'm. saying is that -- >> the rest of the economy is growing. >> that was why -- >> a way to handle an oil crisis

is not tens of thousands of spending.tr >> you made a promise in 2007 that you would tackle the barriers to trade within this country as an economic union. .. be, and now here we are. we have more barriers to trade within canada and the 28 nation states of the european union. why over this period of time -- where is your plan? mr. harper: the fact of the matter -- mr. mulcair: the problem mr. harper has on that one is he refuses to sit down and talk with the premiers. it's just not showing leadership. we have a federation that needs people to sit down and talk about barriers, talk about climate change, talk about how we will get canadians ahead and uncertain economy. he has simply refused to engage

with provincial weather is on interprovincial trade barriers whether it's on training and job creation and that's what frankly not the kind of leadership at the broad and diverse country like canada actually needs for our prime minister. >> mr. trudeau on trade. the federal government is working together on breaking down. mag barriers. we have the u.s. partnership and we made significant progress but more importantly under our government we have increased the number of countries with which we have included trade deals from five to 44 with the entire european union much of the hemisphere and now the nation. no government has opened up trade opportunities for trading companies and canadian workers like this. >> stephen "harper's" family prime minister in canadian history who when asked about the recession during his mandate was to say which one?

he just admitted we had five months of negative growth in a row and yes a lot of experts say we are in a recession. mr. harper we want to spend our time concentrating on creating jobs. what we are seeing here tonight is you are going going to dervis and you can't hang onto your job and i'm going to do everything i can to create jobs. >> and with all due respect it was to sell us down the river on national sovereignty. it bound this country without a single set of hearings in the parliament. not a trade deal, and investment treaty with china. it lines us until year 2045 and we can't get out of it. when to insist on transparency because beijing will be looking over the shoulder of the next prime minister in telling us what laws to have. >> would the regret we have to leave the segment of the debate on the economy although i'm sure russians will come up in the night as well. we will continue after this break. please stay with us.

♪ >> the maclean's debate returns in three minutes. right now we are coast-to-coast with canadians were acting and analyzing what's being said tonight and what isn't. a live look white house st. johns were students at memorial university have gathered at the breezeway to watch the leaders face off. for now we move west to tammie sutherland garnering reactions on the key subject they were discussing, jobs. >> i'm at the college where we have been watching a debate with some of those schools journalism students. they scrutinize the key issues when it comes to pertaining to the youth. one of the issues its difficulty finding a job. we are joined by angelie sood. tell us about some of the

concerns you have heard from the students on campus when it comes to jobs. >> speaking to students watching the debate the big issue is jobs. we want to make sure after spending so much money and so much time and so much investment on our education we want a job after this may want to make sure we can at least make a dent in our student loans so what is the minimum wage going to be? do we have a fighting chance? >> and secondary education loans. >> maybe workshops after you finish her formal training is an opportunity for growth. >> thanks so much angelie and we will send it over to roger who is gauging facebook are you. >> we want to get you involved with facebook. thanks for joining us and we been asking questions on line. our first poll is in and who do people feel should be the leader of the country? >> as you can see here we have 50% of the people who have taken our poll on facebook according

to mr. mulcair. >> and this is all happened from the start of the debate. >> that's right. this is early days for the election and we are going to see over the course of a debate whether or not these memberships. >> we will also be looking the other polls. what are some of the other questions? >> we will look at deeper issues of the economy energy and how do people on facebook feel about these things and how are they represented on those issues? >> the place to go for that is facebook.com and we will be asking a question stuff evening with lots going on. i'm surprised by what you are seeing. >> again this is an early moment before anybody heard any of the debate so again it will be interesting to see what we see over the course of the evening. >> we will send you back to the maclean's another live look at canadians in new brunswick.

a debate analysis will continue. now back to the debates. >> welcome back to the maclean's national leaders debate. our second segment will be on energy and the environment. >> two years ago conservative cabinet minister joe oliver called oil exports an urgent matter. since then to projects key stine stine -- keystone xl in northern gateway. it's almost four years since canada withdrew from the kyoto accord. the kyoto protocol is not where the solution lies and our environment canada says it long meets our carbon emissions for 2020. what is the proper trade-off question rating energy exports and the environment or it can canada afford -- can canada afford not to?

>> our first question this topic goes to stephen harper. mr. harper. >> you have been prime minister for a decade and you want to be a different kind of premise on energy exports. he wants canada to be an energy superpower. the major export project of the united states installed on your watch what have you achieved in energy exports that make -- beats the record of your predecessors? >> in fact our energy exports have increased, not just until recently not just darling gas exports in the united states but we have also seen an increase in uranium exports coal exports and others to asia but i would say this poll the federal government does not know pipelines. we obviously favor seeing a diversification of our experts experts -- exports that we establish and a bar musso process. we are going to that process. in terms of the keystone pipeline as you know that's a situation under the control of united states.

i've had many conversations with president obama. he is not asking canada to do anything simply thing you will make a decision that is in the american's best interest but as you know there's overwhelming public support on both sides so we are optimistic about about the future that project. [inaudible] >> that may be the case but the reality is there's overwhelming public support in the united states including congress on both sides of the aisle so i ann compton out looking at the field whoever is the next president i think will approve that project very soon in the mandate. >> have you found this to be frustrating? you said in the intro oliver called the northern gateway project an urgent matter and canada's national interest. it remains unfulfilled. >> the project went through it a rigorous environmental assessment. the assessment recommended some to other conditions on the project. we approve the projects subject to those conditions and it's now

up to the proponent of fulfill those conditions and that's how the system works in this country. >> nationally as a price on carbon four years ago what obama have approved the keystone pipeline by now? >> absolutely not. the president has never said that's a man in on the contrary the president said doctors will influence the decision. let's remember united states is not agreed yet to have greenhouse gas emissions regulations on their own oil and gas sector. >> thank you mr. harper. the first responders from you on this is elizabeth may. >> with all the respect mr. primacy record on climate is a linear park and promises including one directly relevant to the question that paul wells is asking you about exports. it committed not to export on profit oil to countries that have weaker emissions standards and that would obviously include china the destination point for amperage which is only the green

party on the stage opposes. makes no sense to export to countries with poor environmental record and you are committed to bring in a north america wide cap-and-trade program working with partners. that was in another speech from 2008. you committed to oil and gas -- to exceed 2010 and he personally went to copenhagen. it wasn't a previous promise. you weren't copenhagen and committed to what was i hate to say a very weak target but we are not going to come anywhere near it by 2020 and there's just no credibility at this point. canada needs to take action. we ever see having a summer of extreme drought raging wildfires in severe weather throughout all of our seasons. canadians want action and canada needs to take action so we can defend ourselves from the changing local climate and the impact economically here at home.

>> what to mr. harper has consistently misunderstood about what has happened in the 21st centuries you cannot make a choice between what's good for the environment and what's good for the economy. mr. harper continues to say we can't do anything on environment because we will hurt the economy and not only has not helped our environment that he has actually slowed our economy. he can't get our exports to market because there's no public trust any more. people don't trust the government to look out for a long-term interests. he hasn't convinced communities of the proposals he supports. he hasn't been working with first nations on the kinds of partnerships that are needed if we are going to develop our natural resources. canada will always have an element of natural resources and our economy for the job of the prime ministers to get those resources to market in the 21st century and that means being smart and responsible. mr. "harper's" inability to understand that is exactly why he has struggled to actually get our economy growing in the right way.

>> let's be clear on what the record actually is. not only do we take the economy seriously we are the first government in history to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing our economy. however duh? >> do that through a sector by your regulatory approach where we regulate absolute reductions in emissions and we do so in ways that we know will not kill jobs in burden -- all of these other parties is a carbon tax that would give ordinary workers and dutch hits ordinary workers and consumers hard. >> by gutting our governmental laws somehow we could get energy resources to market better. how is that working out mr. harper? none of those projects have gotten off the drawing board and it's not hard to understand why. canadians across the country want a clear thorough credible environmental assessment. canada can be a leader around the world. we can play a positive role but

with mr. harper we have the worst of all worlds. we have more carbon pollution and we are a ladder on the world stage. >> the only way with all do respect mr. prime minister 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 everything that brought down our emissions. it would have gone up much more than it have now if not for the action of ontario and shutting down coal-fired power plants. the cold cruel reality is that under your watch greenhouse gases have been rising carbon pollution is then rising. as soon as our economy began to recover in 2009 straight up line. >> greenhouse gas emissions have actually gone down in the economy has grown. those are the facts. mr. mulcair says that various energy projects are going nowhere. they are an environmental

process processes going forward. we make sure that we look at that process to make decisions. the problem is the other party has taken positions depending on who they are speaking to in mr. mr. trudeau's case against every single one of these projects. natural gas prices, they have oppose the government. tax incentives to equal five natural gas supported not only by the responding industry by aboriginal communities in a broad cross-section this -- i think continuing to invent the past and quite frankly canadians are tired of that kind of leadership did you have a been able to get it done on them ferment mr. harper and you haven't been able to get it done on the economy. you have and build the kind of balance the canadians expect. if we are going to build strong economies and create jobs while protecting our air our water our lands we have to show leadership.

>> mr. trudeau under the liberal government they were up 30% rated. >> a couple of quick questions. mr. harper will canada meet the targets that you went to copenhagen to set for 2020? >> as you know what happened that the targets i believe we will but we are focusing on is 2030 target. we set a target in concert with their international partners 30% over 2005 levels by 2030. look we are going to have to obviously do more regulation. we have announced the sectors but there'll have to be technological transformation. that is why we are investing over a million dollars a year in energy technology projects. >> i covered the 2000 campaign. your minister at the time was promising emissions and oil and gas sector. what are they coming? >> this is an integrated north american sector and we need north american regulations. i made that proposal to our partners in the united states

and mexico but they haven't yet accepted that. but we are ready to go in continuing to try to gain -- >> when he first came to ottawa he was announcing a north american energy partnership he was going to work with canada and that was eight years ago and nothing is happened since. when obama just announced recently landmark legislation moving forward on climate change action. canada is nowhere to be found in be found and that's where the liberal party is proposing we work on the continental model with the united states and mexico to address the energy and a marmot in a conference of way. >> the question could also go to there's a bit of a paradox because it sometimes sounds like you say at the right price on carbon we could have pipelines going hither and yon and what i hear from environmental groups is now thank you we don't want those pipelines no matter which government to. >> the environmental groups in canada and across united states are so concerned about canadian oil because mr. harper has turned the oil into the

scapegoat around the world for climate change. he put a big target on our oil sands which are going to be an important part of our economy for a number of years to come although we have to get beyond them and his lack of leadership on the environment is hurting canadian jobs and canadian relations with other countries. >> taw mulcair. >> getting our resources to market is critical but mr. harper has gotten the balance long -- wrong. he has guided our marmot to legislation and that's hurting jobs in the resource sectors, turning our economy and frankly hurting canada's international regulation. building on my experience when i brought in sustainable development legislation that would enforce that type of legislation made polluters pay for the cold -- pollution they create in these projects 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 exports of 40,000

jobs. i want to create those 40,000 jobs here in canada. >> mr. mulcair are you opposing the pipeline? >> he brought in his party to argue against canadian exports. a moment ago that 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. the ontario government in alberta and u.n. saskatchewan and nova scotia and that's the reason we have the cleanest electricity sector in the world. >> now might be a good time to take a brief pod. save your thoughts and you'll get a chance to express them but this question goes to tom mulcair. mr. mulcair you have said you opposed northern gateway ekes

done xl and in its current formulation energy east. should canadians assume that major energy export projects will be on hold for the duration of the government's term? >> i believe in environment and strong economy to go hand-in-hand. what we especially said in case of northern gateway and i had a chance to visit the douglas tennille is there is no safe way to bring those large supertankers into the town. what i have said in a case of the keystone xl you just heard me repeated part of sustainable development is creating those value-added jobs in your own country. you don't export them to another country and by the way that 40,000 jobs figure is mr. harper's own figure. i want to create those 40,000 jobs here in canada. with regard to energy east that could be a win-win wind, better price for the producers were world is for the producing province and it could help

create jobs in canada and health of canada's energy security but here's the rub. mr. harper has got the balance all wrong. he has scrapped a series of important environmental laws starting with the navigable waters protection act species at risk fisheries. instead of dealing with first nations on a respectful nation to nation basis he spends $100 million a year fighting them in court. we will take a different approach. we will work with first nations and it will be a new era in relations. mr. harper's belligerent butting heads approach is not working and that's why not one of those projects have gotten off the table. >> you also set for energy you have to internalize the price of carbon in the price of the project hate rate that some for good carbon price. would that affect consumers at the gas pump? >> with regard to sustainable development making the polluter pay that's a normal rule of

sustainable development otherwise from a king everybody in society there it. user pays, polluter pays basic rules of development that i've brought in legislation and went so far as to include the right to a green environment. >> thank you mr. mulcair. >> mr. mulcair has been somewhat inconsistent on pipelines. in english it will say he supports the pipeline the pipeline in and franchi said it's out of the question and that inconstancy quite frankly isn't the kind of leadership we need. you can't say one thing in english and its opposite in french. the fact is we need to restore public trust in our ability as a government to create a level playing field upon which proponents of a project can gain the public trust from the communities it will touch i working in concert with first nations and enabling people to make sure the right partnerships are in place and also as to make sure they scientific guidelines

are protecting canadians. this is about not just doing right by her environment but also doing right by future generations. for that to take cold we have to have a government that's demonstrating leadership that understands you cannot meet the 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 jobs come investing in the kinds of pollution reductions in emissions reductions we need is what this country hasn't done well enough under stephen harper. >> you do exactly what you accuse mr. mulcair of doing. you go to one country anywhere for energy and you go to québec and you aren't rated all of these parties have posed all of these projects before we have had environmental assessments.

that's not the responsible way you do things. the government has murmured to assessments. you take evaluation based on that and you move forward and that is taking the jobs and the economy seriously along with the environment. the way you don't deal with the problems is start imposing carbon taxes that will inevitably raise money for the government. they don't produce -- they hit consumers and the price of gas goes up home heating groceries. that's not the way to deal with it great. >> mr. harper alberta and british columbia and québec have a price on carbon right now. >> first of all different provinces have different approaches. some of them i prefer more than others. i think what's important alberta had a very limited carbon price a tech fund within the industry. it was not about raising revenue for the government. it was not about taking money out of the pockets of consumers. the carbon price or pose as

proposed by the other parties would involve tens of billions of dollars in revenue for governments and paul i will say what i've said to people across the country. a carbon tax is not about reducing emissions. it's about getting revenues for governments that cannot control it traded. >> i have to try to explain the reason the green party opposes every single one of the pipelines that are proposed risky pipeline schemes to get him processed oil out of this country. mr. mulcair is right, every single one of these processed oil rice line teams is about exporting canadian jobs. the green party opposes every single one of them and i would like to have mr. mulcair's answer will you join us in fight against the risky pipeline expansion tripling the transport of unprofitable oil from vancouver? >> i share the same concerns as miss me with regard to the

candor morgan pipeline and a back that's another example of what mr. harper has done to her rules. did you know that groups that are involved in those hearings are not allowed to cross-examine the companies? that's a fundamental breach of the rules of natural justice. >> but do you oppose the pipeline? >> opposing the pipelines systematically in advance is just as wrong as supporting them in advance because in both cases what you need is an object if --. >> we would be replacing the supertankers there right now coming down the st. lawrence. we would be replacing the extremely dangerous trains are going through communities across canada. that is the type of evaluation we should do. it's an objective evaluation of the gang get back to credible system which we have lost. >> canadians know that we need a natural approach. that restores that public trust that we have simply lost over

the past years. mr. harper has failed on the environment and therefore he is filled on the economy. mr. mulcair continues to say different things in both languages but i will say that on energy east i have consistently consistently -- consistently said it needs to gain social license and you criticized me when they were in government. >> that was opposite and interview. it's easy to find that quote on line. >> i'm sure not sure where you stand on candor moving out vancouver. it's very hazardous risky material and we know regardless of what kind of processor goes there it should not go ahead great it must be stopped. >> this is part of my track record that people are free to consult. when it was liquefied natural gas plant across from québec

city i didn't want to look at it because of the danger of a tankers in the st. lawrence the same approach to take with northern gateway and the dangers tankers in the douglas channel. we have to be able to look at them objectively and with thorough credible environmental assessments. i am taking a position to do can study these projects. ms. may takes the position that you can say no to all of them and mr. harper's taken a position that you can say yes to all of them in advance. we want a clear process. >> the position of the government as 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 by his own admission has ruled out a number of projects before they went through the process and is positioning himself to engage others as well. that's a record of the ndp. they are for projects until they face one in that is why british

columbia they opposed even liquefied natural gas. >> mr. harbor have a track record of people are free to look at. we sometimes had tough projects. it was a project involving the bridge lots of opposition to it. we went through a thorough valuation process and we put down 18 conditions in the order of counsel proving that project. the public that was opposed was on the side side because they knew they could have confidence in respecting the environment. respect for the environment in the strong economy are not opposite. >> your party opposes with a fight gas projects in british colombia widely supported important to the energy sector. >> mr. primus or what was your commitment he made that you would in fossil fuel subsidies? you have criticized the other opposition parties over new subsidies for fossil fuels. you made a commitment globally. you have not eliminated the subsidies that go to u.s. gas

but added new subsidies to go to liquefied natural gas which is cracked gas which has the same carbon pollution footprint is cool. >> actually neither of those things is true. we are providing accelerated capital cost to provide cooling liquefied natural gas to encourage that industry that is vital not just to british columbia but the energy sector in this country and we are doing so at a time when after my people the energy sector has significant challenges. this is a good raw check these are good projects for a vampire meant to. >> mr. harper one of the things we have seen across the ward from this government is a misunderstanding of the role of government around protecting our future thinking long-term. we have in the liberal party a clear plan to reduce climate change emissions by greenhouse gas emissions are working with

the provinces. 86% of our economy is committed to put a price on carbon with the actions of four different provinces at it is taken up the leadership that this government has simply not shown. the liberal party is focused on working with those provinces to make sure we have reduce emissions because that's what canadians expect in order to good -- the good players in the global economy. >> i have some any questions would we have to wrap up this segment on energy and environment. i want to remind our viewers watching on tv if you want to engage in social media and have your say you can do so on our facebook page. you can talk to other voters about what's going on while you're watching on tv. as for this week we'll could talk about these issues so much but it's time for another break. >> a live look at that berkin the montréal canadiens hearing

the issues that matter from coast to coast. we will get back to that date in a minute that silliness continues with in-depth analysis at the first debate of the election season intensifies. and welcome back. we are joined by kevin the public policy manager of facebook and we been talking about some of the polls we have read the latest one is about a carbon tax they were discussing just now in surprising numbers resounding numbers with it. >> we have an overwhelming majority of canadians who took the pole on facebook that said that they believe there should be a price put on carbon's. >> that is surprising when you overlay with some of the numbers we have seen. >> when you look up a map of canada we have seen, we looked at the 338 different key issues. this is a map of the references for energy and the empire meant. >> in alberta. >> in alberta you see -- >> with that special panel of

local journalist delving deep into these stats and political specialists. >> thank you roger for the gentlemen with me ins and outs of canadian politics and they will be joining me for the next few hours. john getty from the claims of ottawa bureau chief and justin ling parliamentary correspondent. who is winning this debate so far and why? >> we think it's a split. justin trudeau was clear and concise and i thought he was the clear winner of the first round and thomas mulcair the second round had a serious -- it's a bit of a wash for the first. i think mulcair had a challenge in not playing to the pugnacious image he wants to seem like less of a fighter. i think he has managed that so far and most tough talking over each other and exchanges in a big come between trudeau and

harper. >> initiated by trudeau. >> i'm going to have to agree with justin there's a split between mulcair and justin trudeau at the moment and i think justin's boxing photo op showed where he came out swinging. mulcair at the start didn't seem to get his point across as much but as the debate went on he seemed to feel more relaxed. he looked better. he looks more common you is getting his point across better. >> i thought it took him longer than expected to make his stride and i thought harper hasn't been as aggressive. we will be back surely with more from our panel and as we return to the debate our viewers tuning in across the country hears toronto at seneca college. >> we have reached the halfway point of this maclean's national leaders today. in next topic in canada's democracy how it works why

doesn't always work as well as we hoped. >> is surprising how much time we spend in recent years debating the institutions of canadian democracy. canada is a mess. can we clean it up? can we shut it down and is that even possible? there are serious questions how it provides a wealth of voters. is it time to replace our electoral -- how can we fix the quorum in the house of commons? and all the appointments government makes an office. >> her first question is for ms. may. you have called the government have now an elected dictatorship and called for electoral reform. this election will be won and lost under the current system. do you worry that green candidates will take support away from other parties and mica

green party help reelect this government? >> whenever to the government as a dictatorship is not personal to the prime minister nor his party. his reference to what happened with creeping growth and unhealthy growth of power in the pregnancy's office which goes along with less of a role for individual members members of the parliament and doing their fundamental jobs are the only job description is that under the constitution which is to represent your constituency. we need to actually revisit parliamentary democracy understand this election isn't about electing a prime minister. we don't do that in this country. we elect members of parliament and their job is to find the government that will hold the commons in the house we can work for comedians. as far as greenspan concerned not at all. while we have had success across provinces in british columbia in new brunswick david com and prince edward island all of us got elected by driving up voter turnout so instead of fixating

on splitting the vote vote splitting way to focus on the root problem which is 40% of canadians in the last number of elections haven't voted and voted banning in my view is a bigger problem than vote splitting. we are going to 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 so canada wins with a healthy democracy. >> you said we don't elect a prime minister and that's true but we saw quite a coalition crisis in 2008. are we headed towards that sort of arbitrage among parties if there is no majority? >> i can't tell you how committed greens will be working with other parties working across party lines and made sure we go from a precarious two-year minority promise to a stable productive effect of parliament

has you look a great parliament in this country and i refer back to lesser v. harrison under david lewis and stephen baker in the conservatives delivered our social safety net. >> justin trudeau you get to respond. >> ms. may made a number of great points but one is what i've heard all across the country on a talk to young people and people that are disillusioned and disenchanted with their puggle system either the negativity the attacks the divisiveness that tends to vero warded all too often and electoral success than electoral success sense of making a more difficult to govern. one of the things that frustrates a lot of people is when they see politicians pander when they say one thing to one part of the country in a different thing in another part of the country. one of the things important to mr. mulcair has been doing regularly is talking in french about his desire to repeal the clarity act and to make it easier for those who want to break up this country to do so.

in doing so he is disagreeing with the supreme court judgment that says one vote is not enough to break up the country. anyone who wants to become prime minister not only should not say different things in french than in english which should make sure they side with the supreme court when it comes to the unity of our country. >> mr. mulcair you get to answer that. >> i have fought for canada my whole life. i thought the 1980 referendum. i fought in the 1995 referendum. i have spent 13 years in the national assembly in québec city and i was ice consistent fighting for canada. i can understand it's a bit frustrating for the liberal set for the first time in whole generation woodpeckers voted for the federalist party and they wanted nothing to do with the liberals and it's easy to understand why. the only two people i know in canada who are anxious to talk about separatism are justin

trudeau and -- mr. trudeau has an obligation if he wants to talk about the subject to come clean with canadians. what is your number mr. trudeau? >> first of all mr. mulcair i don't question your patriotism. >> do want a number? i will give you number. my number is nine. nine supreme court justices said one vote is not enough to break up this country and yet that is mr. mulcair's position that he wants to be prime minister of this country and he is choosing to side with the separatist movement in québec and not with the supreme court of canada. it's his policy to repeal the clarity he quietly put forward a bill in the house of commons on that and announce it very loudly. he announced it in french six weeks ago and he won't talk about it.

>> a margin above 50% will the acceptable? >> the supreme court said a clearly mr. mulcair is not the right one. and the number should be set in the context of the next referenda. >> if i camp all i'm not going to question mr. mulcair's question is a longtime federalist. i do think the question along with mr. trudeau why bring up a debate in the clarity act other than to satisfy the separatist elements within the ndp in québec? we just had quebecers massively reject that agenda. why would we go down the road of talking about how we can best break up the country when in fact quebecers clearly don't want to do that. >> that is something we do agree on. >> let me put the question to the prime minister used to

support a 50% margin of referendum on sovereignty. i don't believe i have heard you give a number. >> you haven't heard me revisit it because i don't figure should be revisited. what happened in 1995 they tried to get 50% plus one by invalidating a whole bunch of federalist votes so i do think we have to look carefully at that if we ever have that problem but i think quebecers have firmly rejected that he may have gone through 40 years of a debate that is not -- done nothing but damage to that province. why he raised the issue? >> the prime minister and i agree that yes means yes. that's what he put in this bill and to say otherwise is mr. trudeau was doing was still refusing to give his number --. >> fes doesn't doesn't mean as then people could decide to vote yes as a way of sending a signal. that's why it's a dangerous

political game and that's why it's not a serious way to talk about a serious subject? i am so proud and i have confidence in quebecers. we are trying to throw gasoline on a fire that is not even burning. >> mr. trudeau thinks it's a winning combination for the liberals. >> mr. mulcair you were the one that announced on separation and making it easier. my position is the supreme court's position that says the number should be set in the context of the next referendum if that ever comments and your play to stoke up that separatist vote for the ndp by announcing six weeks ago that this is continuing to be your policy is not worthy of a prime minister. >> i was going to say it isn't

ironic that this segment was supposed to be democratic institutions starting with lips about how much heckling there is in the house of commons. it's been our hallmark for generations that we can disagree without eating disagreeable and i would like us to be able to talk about what we do about fixing parliament because that's an urgent crisis and i don't believe we want to get ourselves mired into any thread of separatism. >> let's do that because liberal party is a project of electoral reform. mr. trudeau said he wants the next election to be proposed. stephen harper wants to insist that any changes to electoral system goes to referendum process. why do you think that should happen? >> i think it's a fundamental change to the way our political system would work in this country. we have a westminster system and voters are able to elect governments. they don't like coalitions and they make up the government later.

it was the subject of a referendum in ontario and british columbia. i've not found canadians that want to make this fundamental change. whenever canadians are asked they reject it. when know the rules. let's play by the rules. >> today when he broadened his unfair elections act he refused to even talk to canadians about it. we stood up strong in the house of commons and opposed it. they shut down travel by parliamentary goodies. we used every tool in our parliamentary toolbox to stop him from trying to run away with the next election. he has made it far harder for both classes of canadians to vote. all of the experts that have looked at his unfair elections act and said the same thing some mr. harper if you have become such a keen fan of making sure that no single party can change the rules why did you go ahead and do just that? >> but there are elections act the principle change it makes is that voters have to show i.d. to

demonstrate who they are and there are 40 some different pieces of i.d. that they can show. canadians overwhelmingly support that. that's important reform. >> canadians believe we should be able to show identification before you vote and frankly i think voters should be worried about political parties who would not do that. >> this is the perfect example of how mr. harper creates fears of massive voter fraud. when his party was pressed on examples of people fraudulently voting he went able to prove anything and indeed some of his mds testify to things they hadn't seen. the fact of the matter is the job of elections canada and what we should look at is the goal of the countries to try to encourage as many people as possible to vote and to change mr. harper has made to the elections act makes it more difficult for students for

aboriginal indigenous communities for many seniors to actually vote. >> this or trudeau. >> the fact is we need to make sure those voices are being heard because those voices are just marginalized and voting rights but someone aspects of society and mr. harper apparently wants to keep it that way. sin how would we identify voter fraud if we can't even identify who brokers -- voters are? this is supported by 90% of canadians and we have made sure there is i.d. applicable for every single category of canadians. >> this is an important reform. >> the fair elections act turns out to be full of surprises and one things it did is extend the election campaign to 11 weeks. did you have as long election campaign in mind for two years? >> paul all of us here agree to have an election -- months ago.

the other parties were campaigning. it's very simple if we are going to be in an election campaign we should be under the rules of the election act not using parliamentary rules. >> why were you putting out out -- on our web site mr. harper? >> we will continue with a new round of russians and by the look of the draw the first question goes to the prime minister stephen harper. mr. harper you promised you would name senators if name senators have ever been elected and now you are promising you won't name senators at all. blaming accords were blocking reform and ask the provinces to come up with ideas for reform that the courts and the provinces didn't name the senators that are in trouble. you did. do you owe canadians an apology for putting them in the senate? >> first of all is certainly did not name the senators that are in trouble. the senate has seen an institution that is these kinds of problems for 150 years and i would say for the first time we have a senate that now has clear

rules and is enforcing those rules. my rule is not to apologize for the bad actions of others. when that actions arise the role of the leader is to take responsibility and hold people accountable and that's exactly what we are doing. >> your policy now is not to make senators and definitely -- there's already a court case before a judge and british columbia on the assertion that won't work. you can't empty out the senate overtime because of the nature of the constitutional mandate of the senate. have you sought constitutional advice on whether you can go ahead with your new policy? >> absolutely. you can't empty the senate entirely but i have left 22 seats vacant already. the proud prime minister has the power to name those are not name those in the senate. it's actually fallen by 6000 press think those senate

vacancies will force provinces to come clean with that and explain why the senators aren't being elected. i gave them a chance and they won't elect them and why they want abolished. i think over time public pressure will force this issue to be resolved and frankly i think the longer they were more vacancies i think it will raise questions about why we continue the way we do. >> do think one good way to come up with ideas with the provinces is -- [inaudible] >> i know what the positions of the provinces are. there is nowhere near consensus on either reform or abolition and i think opening up constitutional discussions is the wrong priority for the country. our priorities are the economy and security. at the provinces believe the senate should be fixed tell us how and if they don't abolish it. sin thank you mr. harper and the first response was to tom mulcair.

>> i guess you could say they are our broken and that there are broken promises. mr. harper promised solemnly to canadians that he would never name an appointed senator. he's gone on to break a record to name 59 of them in the list of conservative senators under our investigation continues to grow it and looking for mandate on october 19 to put an end to this mess once and for all. canadians deserve better. the three main things we can do with regards restitution. make sure the bug counts open up parliament for example, get rid of this secrecy of the internal committee that looks at how taxpayers money is spent. we think taxpayers have a right to see however single dollar is spent in that secret committee inside the house and by the way we do want to get rid of the senate abolition pure and simple. mr. trudeau thinks any better senators. i think we need only former

senators. >> mr. trudeau. >> mr. harper said his plan on senate reform is to tell the provinces stop me before a point again. the fact of the matter solemn promise never to appoint a senator and he broke that promise on his very first day as prime minister i appointing michael for check to the senate and then he broke that promise 58 more times. i can understand why nobody would believe him when he says he's not going to point in a more senators right now. mr. mulcair wants to open up the constitution. the fact of the matter is when the next prime minister eventually sits down with the premiers to talk about things canadians are going to want the prime minister and the seniors to talk about jobs to talk about climate change to talk about health care not to talk about how do open up the constitution to improve the senate. affect his liberal party took concrete action to remove

senators from our caucus to make sure future appointments are done in a transparent moderate way without diving into constitutional reform. too bad with all due respect whoever gave you the advice announcing he wouldn't appoint senators as constitutional mesa go back to law school. the single biggest scandal that has yet occurred in the canadian senate was not understanding. as the illegitimate -- illegitimate notion that the premise or has the right right to tell conservative senators have to vote and for the first time in history this country have built passed in the house of commons to chemically -- democratically-elected house passed they come don't actually went to the senate the conservative senators were instructed to kill it as their first opportunity. this is the first time in the history of this country that appointed senators have killed a bill without a single day of study and the senate of canada.

c mr. harper did you assess senators to stop that no? >> we cannot force them to do anything that we asked ask them to support the party's position. the party didn't support that particular bill but what i would say is this. if you look at the facts of apartment under this government this is often not reported. we have backbenchers voting more freely than we had in decades. we have more private members and legislation that has gone through parliament under this government the multiple governments before us. that's the reality of the situation. more than all previous prime ministers combine. >> i was there with jack layton in front of the senate the day the senators had the temerity to block a bill that has been adopted by those people who had been allotted by the canadian voting public. ms. may is right there was the first time in 75 years and what subject? the most important issue racing

future generations. i don't want a grandchildren to have to bear the burden are wrong headed choices. mr. harper admitted he asked the senators to kill a bill adopted by the house of commons. what greater proof of a lack of respect for fundamental democracy than asking unelected people to defeat the bill voted upon and enacted by the elected parliament? >> let's be very clear we ask senators to stick to their principles and the fact of the matter is private members legislation has been brought frequently in the past by the senate. >> never, never. >> i don't have to name senators. we have a healthy government. >> you broke your promise 59 times. >> do we have a record on that? for three years we left some 20 vacancies in the senate invited the provinces to fill those and only one did.

to get government legislation moving in the senate. i set in 2008 i would appoint senators and we have done so and now that we don't need do we have stopped. mr. trudeau you just said there are no liberal senators. there are 29 liberal senators working for the liberal party. >> mr. harper you are talking about senate abolition. note quebec are you -- premier will support -- is that not a problem? >> it's a long-standing position and one that i quite understand that we would take a different approach to dealing with the promises. this issue of senate abolition begins with a mandate not because it's been there for a long time and we can't get rid of it. i would mean sitting down with the provinces and territories.

mr. harper has refused to attend a single meeting since becoming prime minister. i hold two meetings a year one in ottawa and one in one or other of the provinces rotating. things like health care we need a modern accord and of course i'm going to sit down with them is that dictating a big cut like mr. harper did a couple of years ago. i would ask for mandate and start the hard work of the party. meeting with the premiers to get them on board to get rid of this undemocratic unaccountable institution that is a relic from our colonial past. >> stir mulcair not only do you respect the government's position was your position for all the years you were in the government and he should be clear. mr. harper is proving my point is a long-standing position since the patriots have the constitution and 82. every successful québec government is has said that.

that's why i'm not at all hesitant to sit down again with my friend and former colleague and work on this tough issue. i believe sincerely the only way to do with the senate is to get rid of it. $1 billion has been spent on the senate on mr. harper's watch. he has done nothing about abolition. he has done nothing about rick warren. can you imagine how many childcare spaces we could have created with $1 billion? >> ms. may has not had much of a chance to address these questions. >> the way the greens advocate that we change the positions is to create a council of canadian governments which would include building on the council of better ration by provincial territorial representation from municipal and local government as well as first nations. around the same table we need to deal with the senate. it's not my top tired because it's hard. will require opening the constitution. we think we should amend the amending formula for the that

canadians can change her constitution by referendum instead of the antiquated formula we are saddled with today. >> mr. trudeau the prime minister called you out and said their liberal senators on the web site. is larry. >> is not part of our caucus. a number of them have chosen to be independent and semi-chosen to continue to call themselves liberals but unlike what mr. harper just said which is that he directed those senators to vote along party lines i haven't done that and i longer have the power to do that over the senators who were formerly in the liberal caucus because we feel the decisions that are taking taken any up or how should be independent of the political maneuvering. >> liberal senators vote date -- you have to believe that the liberal senators have changed. here is the reality.

during the most recent provincial election nova scotia the new premier had all of the senate liberals up on stage to thank them for doing his fund-raising. >> here's a surprise for you larry campbell has endorsed me. >> stay with us for the final round of the night and for closing remarks. >> we have moved our viewing party's west end are taking a live look at the university of british columbia. as more canadians tune into the debate in the issues that impact our nation. welcome back. our issue today was we approach the final leg of this debate just and i'm going to start with you. what are you thinking so far around to? >> i think mulcair was quite strong in the senate. he had a couple of issues where he could have been a lot stronger but eventually the cat

got into his group. the prime minister looks weak on democratic reform and i think he looks weak there. by having a clear concise message got there and she made her point. don't know if she will connect with canadians but she got into the debate. >> i agree with the point alyssa made that the prime minister had me worried. i thought he came out of it maybe a bit scuffed up but he wasn't battered and bruised by those guys. >> what you think about his answer that is not his job as a leader to apologize for the actions of others when asked if he should apologize. >> given the toughness of the question he gave a little bit of an awkward answer. >> harper was good on the question of separation when i came in and mulcair and trudeau were going after each other. he was on the