Federal Leaders’ Debate 2019

Announcer: Exactly two
weeks from tonight,
Canadians will decide who
to invite or invite back
to this place —Parliament Hill,
The House of Commons.
♪ ♪For 27 days, the six main party
leaders have been travelling
the country, making
pitches and promises.
Tonight, they will defend and
deconstruct their ideas live.
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.Conservative leader
Andrew Scheer.
NDP’s Jagmeet Singh.Elizabeth May of
the Green Party.
Bloc Quebecois leader
Yves-Francois Blanchet.
And Maxime Bernier of
the People’s Party.
Their goal: to convince you to
give their party your vote.
The moderators are five
of the country’s most respected
political journalists.The setting is one of Canada’s
most remarkable institutions,
the Museum of History in
Gatineau, Québec.
This is the debate.
Here are your leaders.
[applause] Lisa LaFlamme: Welcome to
the2019 Leaders’ Debate. I’m Lisa LaFlamme
from CTV News, and I am one of the
moderators tonight. Our audience is made up
mostly of undecided voters, gathered here in the round, so they’re right at the heart
of this important night. One note, however, we
have asked them to hold back their applause
throughout the debate so we can keep things moving. And just a couple more
things to note before we get started. We’re going to tackle five
major themes tonight based on the questions
Canadian voters want asked and debated. There were more than
eight thousand. So the themes tonight
reflect those questions. The leaders will answer
them based on an order selected in a random draw. We all want a meaningful
debate tonight. Viewers want answers so the
leaders have all agreed to respect the time they
are allowed tonight. And, believe me, we will
all make sure they do. Our first theme is leadership
in Canada and the world, and our first question is
from Reagan Li, right here in the audience.
Reagan. Good evening, leaders. Sorry. Many Canadians have felt the
implications of a divided world more so than 2015, from U.S.
Protectionism, to Brexit, to our growing
tensions with China. As Prime Minister, how would
you effectively defend both the interests and values of
Canadians on the world stage? Thank you. Lisa: Reagan, thank
you for that. Mr. Trudeau, you are
first to respond tonight. You have 45 seconds. Mr. Trudeau: Thank you, Reagan,
for being here tonight and thank you, all, for joining
us in this important moment to talk about the future
of our country and compare and contrast the
various plans that we have. We know we live in a very
challenging time right now. From protectionism to
fear-based politics, to the transformative
technological change people are facing. We need to make sure that
Canadians are equipped and tooled to be able to succeed
in an uncertain world. And that’s why over the past
four years, we’ve invested directly in Canadians. Helped people be optimistic
about their future, have the tools to succeed,
and the tools to see their kids succeed. We know the environment is a
massive and pressing challenge, and building a stronger economy
for the future means protecting the environment for the
future as well. These are the things we’re going
to be talking about tonight. Lisa: Mr. Trudeau,
thank you for that. Mr. Bernier, your
opportunity to respond. Maxime Bernier: Thank you. We are the People’s Party,
and we put Canada first. The other leaders on this
stage are global leaders. They spend your money to buy a
seat at U.N. Security Council and also they are giving your
money to other countries to fight climate change
in Asia and build roads in Africa. The U.N. is a dysfunctional
organization, and we must be able to
fight for our country. Actually, we are the only
party that will have foreign policies that is
based on our security and prosperity for
our country. Lisa: Mr. Bernier,
thank you. The next opportunity
for Mr. Singh to respond. Mr. Singh: Thank you very much,
Reagan, for your question. I know it’s tough
to ask questions in front of a big crowd,
so thanks for doing that. Thanks to Canada for joining and
taking part in this discussion. To me, leadership is about
who you’re fighting for, the choices you make. and whether you’re doing
what is right for people. And whether it comes to
international affairs, standing up to Trump, making
sure we fight to build better trade agreements that
actually put Canadians first. For me, the question
really comes down to, do you have the courage
to stand up to the powerful and wealthy interests, the
corporations that are having too much influence over Canada?
And I’ve seen so far in Ottawa, whether it’s Liberal or
Conservative governments, they haven’t had the
courage to stand up and fight for people. We’re different.
We’re in it for you. I don’t work for the rich and
powerful, I work for the people. Lisa: Mr. Singh,
thank you. Mr. Scheer, your
opportunity to respond. Mr. Scheer: Thank
you very much. And, of course, I will always
stand up for Canada and Canadians’ interests
and promote free trade and defend our interests
all around the world, but Justin Trudeau only pretends
to stand up for Canada. He’s very good at
pretending things. He can’t even remember how many
times he put blackface on because the fact of the matter
is he’salwayswearing a mask. He puts on a reconciliation
mask and then fires the Attorney General, the first one of
Indigenous background. He puts on a feminist mask,
and then fires two strong female MPs for not going
along with his corruption. He puts on a middle-class
mask and then raises taxes on middle-class Canadians. Mr. Trudeau, you’re a
phoney, and a you’re fraud and you do not deserve to
govern this country. Lisa: There will be an
opportunity later during the open debate to defend
each other. First of all, Ms. May,
if you’d like to answer Reagan’s question. Ms. May: I would actually like
to answer Reagan’s question, in contrast to what
we just heard. But I want to start by
acknowledging that we’re on the traditional territory
of the Algonquin people. So to them,miigwech.Canada’s role in the world
is an amiable one. We have a historic reputation
for being an honest broker. For being a country that stands
up for multilateralism. We have a commitment as
a nation to meet the sustainable development goals. Which means our future as a
world is built on ending poverty and encouraging the
education of women and girls. That’s a cornerstone. On top that, we really need to
renegotiate the World Trade Organization and make it
an organization that promotes climate action. We need a World Trade and
Climate Organization. We need to support the rule
of law and human rights around the world because
weareworld leaders. Lisa: Ms. May, thank you. Again, the question,
how would you as prime minister protect
Canadian interests and values on this changing world stage? Mr. Blanchet? Mr. Blanchet: Prime Minister
is a bit unlikely, however, first, good
evening, everybody, and thank you for having me on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. Having leadership or showing
leadership sometimes mean not making mistakes. Arresting the Chief Financial
Officer of Huawei might have been a big mistake for which
farmers, or those who import our beef, might have
paid the price. When you’re facing powerful
folk like China, you don’t try to show biceps
if you have only tiny biceps. And this is something that
has to be learned. And we would support somebody
with real leadership, not making mistakes. Lisa: Mr. Blanchet,
thank you for that. Continuing with our theme
leadership in Canada and the world, it’s now my
opportunity to ask a question on behalf of Canadians. Again, to a leader chosen
by a random draw. So this question is for People’s
Party leader Maxime Bernier. Every other leader will
then have the opportunity to debate him, but
Mr. Bernier, you like to tweet, so let me read some
of your tweets back to you. You called diversity in
Canada ‘a cult and extreme multiculturalism’. You’ve used the words
‘ghetto’ and ‘tribes’ to describe newcomers whom
you say bring distrust and potential violence. On Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate
change activist, you’ve called her “clearly
mentally unstable.” Are these the words of someone
with the character and integrity to lead all Canadians
and represent us on the world stage? Mr. Bernier: To your question, you must tell the
truth to Canadians if you want to be the
leader of this country. And what I’m saying about
extreme multiculturalism, it is not the way to
build this country. Yes, this country is a diverse
country, and we must be proud of that. But we don’t need a legislation
like the Multiculturalism Act to tell us who we are. We are a diverse country,
and we are proud of that. What I’m saying because it’s
in line with the immigration, I’m saying we must have fewer
immigrants in this country to be sure for these people to
participate in our society. So it is a great country, but
it’s time to have a discussion about the immigration. We don’t want our country
to be like other countries in Europe, where they
have huge difficulty to integrate their immigrants. And I’m a proud Canadian,
and that’s why I love this country and I’m the
only leader on this stage who wants to have a discussion
about the level of immigration. Lisa: So we’re definitely going
to have a lively debate tonight because now it is Mr. Singh’s
opportunity to debate Mr. Bernier on that
very question, the temperament required
for a good leader. Mr. Singh: Mr. Bernier, after
hearing what was just said, you could have said
‘hey, man I messed up’. Because those are pretty
horrible tweets that you made. And, really, for me, it should
come as no surprise to you, I believe a leader is not
someone who should try to divide people or to pit
people against each other. A true leader who tries
to build bridges, bringing people together. That’s what a leader does. A leader works for the
people who need help. Not helping those at the top
as we’ve seen the government in Ottawa doing far too long. They’ve been working to make
life easier for the multi-billionaires. They give massive
corporate tax cuts. Billions of dollars
go towards them. We see offshore tax
havens continue. This is not the way
to build a country. The way to build a
future is — Mr. Bernier: You won’t be
able to help Canadians with your Socialist policy.
It will hurt everybody. Mr. Singh: What you’re
going to do is not going to help anybody. [inaudible; multiple speakers] Mr. Bernier: You must
believe in people. Mr. Singh: What you’re
saying is not helpful. Lisa: I’m just going
to remind everyone, this is a debate and the
viewers do have a difficult time even hearing anything
if you’re talking over each other. So this is a portion
where the leaders can debate Mr. Bernier, and it
is now the opportunity of Mr. Scheer to debate Mr. Bernier
on the question of leadership. Mr. Scheer: What Mr. Bernier
fails to understand is that you can absolutely be proud
of Canada’s history, you can be proud of our
identity, you can be proud of the things we’ve done and
accomplished in the world while at the same time
welcoming people from all around the world. That is something that has
made Canada strong. People come to Canada
because of our freedom. Our freedom to — Mr. Bernier: You’re right. That’s why I want people to
share the Canadian values. Equality between men and woman,
separation of state, and — Mr. Scheer: Mr. Bernier, you
have changed from someone who used to believe — Mr. Bernier: Like they
did in the past — Lisa: We’ll let Mr. Scheer
answer the question. Mr. Scheer: — who used to
believe in an immigration system that was fair, orderly
and compassionate, and now you are making your policy
based on trying to get likes and re-tweets from the
darkest parts of Twitter. We can be a country that
celebrates contribution of people from all
around the world. Mr. Bernier: I want to
celebrate what unites us. Mr. Scheer: You can do that. You can do that without
insulting people who have come to
this country. That is the difference between
Mr. Bernier and myself on this issue. We believe, we believe in
making Canada stronger by welcoming people, adding
it to our country and celebrating the things that
have made us great as a nation. Lisa: Now we’re going to hear
from Ms. May and Mr. Bernier on the same question. Ms. May: I understand
the question, Lisa. It was also about the
characteristics of leadership. Let me just say up front, I
think leadership is service. I think the things that make
a good prime minister is recognizing that we’re
public servants. We haven’t won some
kind of lotto. We don’t get to lord
it over everybody. We’re here as your employee,
and we want to work. I had a little quibble with
our introduction tonight saying saying ‘who will get
invited back’? It’s not to be invited
to go to Parliament. It’s to sign up to work. And to be of public service I
believe in service leadership. That said, I find the things
Maxime Bernier has said to be completely appalling. He knows I feel that way about
the things he says in the House. We used to sit together. And, generally, when he said
anything, I’d have to put my head in my hands because
it was so horrific. Mr. Bernier: I appreciate
you, but I don’t share your Socialist policy, because
we won’t be able to create any wealth with your policies. You have the same kind of
policies in Socialist countries like Venezuela. That won’t create any wealth.
You must admit that. Ms. May: No, the climate
crisis is the single biggest economic opportunity
in a generation. Mr. Bernier: That’s
not responsible. Ms. May: And supporting
immigration is what we need for this economy. I’m proud of the fact the
European Greens are theonlyparty that is
pro-immigration, and so are we. Lisa: Thank you, Ms. May. Now it is Mr. Blanchet’s
opportunity to debate with Mr. Bernier. Mr. Blanchet: How many
seconds will you leave me before you jump in? Somebody invoking the truth
should not be somebody denying climate change. And the use of socialism
seems to come a little bit too easy. Mr. Bernier: I don’t deny — Mr. Blanchet: Oh, 10 seconds. [laughing] Lisa: We were worried they
wouldn’t pay attention. Mr. Blanchet: Immigration
is not that much a matter of number.
It’s a matter of resources. We invest in it in order
to have those persons welcome as well in Canada
as they are in Québec with our desire for them
to share our language, to share some of our values. And if we do have enough
resources invested in that, this is workable. And you do not do it by saying
or sending the message that they are not welcome.
Here in Canada or in Quebec. Mr. Bernier: Everybody is
welcome in this country. And, you know, 49 percent
of our population believe that we must have
fewer immigrants. They are not racist.
They are not radical. So what you are saying, because
I’m in line with the majority of our population, that I’m
supposed to be a radical. No, we have the right
in this country — Mr. Blanchet: Did
anybody tell you that your ancestors were
immigrants also? Weallare immigrants. Mr. Bernier: Absolutely. And we are proud.
We are proud Canadians. Lisa: Okay, and the final
debate on this subject goes to Mr. Trudeau
to Mr. Bernier. Again, the temperament
required for the leader. Mr. Trudeau: I think it’s
important to recognize we’re in a world right now
where these discussions, this polarization, this
fear of the other has become easy currency for politicians
who do want to strike up uncertainty in peoples’
hearts and lift those anxieties and try to get people to
vote against things. Unfortunately, Mr. Bernier on
this stage is playing that role of trying to make people more
fearful about the migrations that are happening in the world
and the opportunities around globalization and our ability
to continue to redefine every single day what it
is to be Canadian, what it means to be Canadian. And, yes, it will evolve.
It will transform itself as we take leadership,
as we move forward. Mr. Bernier: You always
want to celebrate — you always want to
celebrate our diversity. We must celebrate who we are.
And I’m proud Canadian like you. And, you know, we build
this country together, and we want this country to
be like that in 25 years. We love this country and it’s
sad because I want to have a discussion about immigration,
that I’m radical. Mr. Trudeau: Your role on this
stage tonight seems to be to say publicly what
Mr. Scheer thinks privately. Mr. Bernier: Only 6 percent of
Canadians want more immigration. Only 6 percent. So when you don’t want to
have a debate about that, you’re not in line with
the population. Let’s just have an honest
debate on that subject. Lisa: Okay, and on that,
we want to hear from another Canadian tonight. There are obviously so many
layers to the issue of leadership. So this question is coming
from Susan Fernando who asks her question
from Calgary, again. Hi, I’m Susan Fernando
in Calgary. More often than not, the
provincial governments and federal government are on
different wave lengths, no matter what the
political party. Cooperation is key when it
comes to issues of pensions, workers’ rights, to
education and healthcare. As prime minister, how would you
demonstrate strong leadership when working with the
provinces and territories? Lisa: Okay, thank you, Susan
Fernando from Calgary. Again, based on a random draw,
this goes to Mr. Bernier first and then every other leader will
have the chance to answer. Mr. Bernier. Mr. Bernier: First of all, I
will respect the Constitution. I will respect provinces,
and that’s very important. And I won’t interfere in
provincial jurisdiction. I won’t interfere in
healthcare because it is a provincial jurisdiction. And, you know, we
cannot in Ottawa solve the challenges that we’re
having for healthcare. And what we can do, we
can transfer the money to the provinces and
what I will do, I will let provinces
be able to deal with healthcare and education.
That’s our Constitution. We’ll transfer the GST so
provinces will have the money to deal with that. And they will be able to
answer to your challenges. Lisa: Mr. Bernier, thank you. It’s now Mr. Singh’s opportunity
to respond to Susan’s question. Mr. Singh: Thank you. I want to thank
Susan for the question. Really, she’s touched on a lot
of concerns that Canadians have. Things are getting harder
than ever before. And she touched on a
whole host of issues — pensions and healthcare. I want to single in
on healthcare. To me, that’s one of the biggest
concerns I hear about when I meet with people
across this country. And I think of the people that I
meet, the young boy that I met that has a chronic illness
and has to pay for — his family has to pay for
medication and injections and blood work. But he told me he’s not
worried about the illness, but he is worried about
being a burden to his mom and dad. So that young person Mr. Trudeau
is saying you’re not worth universal pharmacare. The big pharmacare companies,
big pharmaceuticals are more important. I want to say that to young
person, with a New Democratic government will bring universal
pharmacare for all. You would use your health
card, not your credit card for medication. Lisa: Mr. Singh, thank you. Mr. Scheer, it’s your
opportunity now. Mr. Scheer: Well, Conservatives
have always recognized the importance of working
with provinces. We respect provincial
jurisdiction, but we also understand it will take federal
leadership to get certain things done. Like inter-provincial
free trade. Something that Mr. Trudeau
has failed to accomplish. But one thing I can promise
voters across the country is that premiers won’t have to take
a Conservative government to court to fight
things like the carbon tax. And Mr. Trudeau has imposed his
carbon tax on provinces that don’t want to go along with
his high-cost scheme. This carbon tax is increasing
the cost of everyday essentials, like gasoline, home
heating and groceries. And it will only go up
after the next election. He is refusing to tell Canadians
how high his carbon tax will go if he’s re-elected. The Conservative government
under my leadership will scrap the carbon tax. Lisa: Mr. Scheer, thank you.
Ms. May. Ms. May: Thank you, Susan,
for the question. It’s very important and, as
Greens, cooperation is in our DNA. None of the problems we solve
are going — and we face — are are going to be solved if we
keep arguing and fighting with each another. Whether it’s within Parliament
in our different parties, or between the federal
government, the provinces and territories. The Greens are proposing a
re-invigorated form of federalism. Modelled after what has
been done in Australia, we want a council of
Canadian governments. So federal government,
provincial, territorial. Municipal and the local orders
of government need a seat at the table. So, too, do Indigenous
leadership. First Nations, Metis and Inuit
around the same table finding common ground on
urgent issues like healthcare, on the climate emergency
and working together in the public interests. Lisa: Ms. May, thank you.
Mr. Blanchet, your opportunity. Mr. Blanchet: Thank you. If I remember well, I seen
a study today saying this campaign is not about federal
issues, but about provincial and Québec issues.
This is not a surprise. If you want cooperation with
provinces or Québec, you need to respect
the jurisdiction. And something that you have to
stop doing — and this is one of the demands of the
government of Québec on many issues — is
giving a hand to this, our money being held hostage
by the federal government and giving back to us
with conditions. The money has to be given to
provinces in their own fields of jurisdiction should be given
back without conditions. Lisa: Mr. Blanchet, thank you. Mr. Trudeau, your
opportunity now. Mr. Trudeau: In 10 years of
Stephen Harper’s government he chose to stop meeting
with premiers in First Minister’s meetings. So we restarted that when
we took office in 2015. We were able to strengthen
the CPP for a generation. We were able to sign historic
health accords with massive investments in home
care and in mental health. We were able to invest in
infrastructure like housing and public transit across the
country, and we continued to work with provinces on
renegotiating a NAFTA that had everyone playing
on one Team Canada. Yes, with certain provinces
right now we’re fighting on the defining
issue of our time. Jason Kenney and Doug Ford and
other Conservative premiers don’t want to do anything
on climate change. We need a government in Ottawa
that is going to fight them and fight for Canadians on
climate change, and that’s exactly
what we’re going to do. Lisa: We will have the open
debate coming up very shortly. We are going to switch gears
now, though, and give a leader a chance to ask any other
leader a question on any topic they choose. Again, the order of this was
chosen by random draw. The first leader this time is
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. Mr. Singh, you have
30 seconds. Mr. Singh: Thank you.
My question is to Mr. Trudeau. You talk often about how
Conservatives cut taxes for the wealthy and cut
education and healthcare and other services. I agree with you and I’ve
heard you say this often. So my question is, you
criticize Mr. Harper on his climate targets but you
failed to achieve them. You criticized Mr. Harper
on the fact that he cut healthcare funding.
You also cut them. You criticized Mr. Harper and
Conservatives on giving billions to billionaires
and corporations. You gave $14 billion more. My question is this, why
do you keep letting down the people that voted for you? Mr. Trudeau: First thing we
did was cut taxes for the middle class and raise them
for the wealthiest one percent. And on climate change, after 10 years of Stephen
Harper doing nothing, in just four years we’ve reached
three quarters of the way to our 2030 targets which we
will meet and surpass. But we know that’s not enough. We’re going to continue
to do more. Like planting two billion trees,
like moving forward on giving money up-front so people can
retrofit their homes, on making Canada
net zero by 2050. We know how important it is to
move forward and right now, Mr. Scheer has promised that the
first thing he would do is to rip up the only real
plan to fight climate change that Canada has ever had. These are the things we’re going
to be moving forward on because Canadians
expect us to. We lifted 900,000 people out
of poverty with our investments in families, with
the Canada Child Benefit. And things that, actually,
Mr. Scheer and Mr. Singh, the NDP voted against. We will continue to invest in
families because it’s creating jobs and helping people out of
poverty, because that’s what Canadians expect. And that’s what we will
continue to do. Lisa: Now the leaders have an
opportunity to have the open debate on this question. It’s for 4 minutes. Mr. Singh, you may begin. Mr. Singh: Thank you. I just wanted to say,
I mean, we look at the track record of
this government. In reality, Statistics Canada
points out in 2017, the wealthiest actually
paid less in tax and gained more in wealth. And when we look at one of
the biggest problems that we’re faced with as a country
is offshore tax havens. Now not only did your
finance minister use offshore tax havens, but
also the president of the Treasury Board. She also used offshore
tax havens. So how can you tell Canadians,
we don’t have the money to fund things like
universal pharmacare when your top two cabinet ministers
don’t pay their fair share? Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Scheer,
you might remember that — Mr. Singh, you might remember — Mr. Singh: I’m very, very
different than Mr. Scheer. Mr. Trudeau: You look so alike
it’s difficult for me. We had a huge fight with the
wealthiest Canadians and the Conservatives when
we closed tax loopholes that Mr. Scheer is going
to re-open and give tax breaks worth $50,000 to the
wealthiest Canadians. Mr. Scheer: Let’s
dive into that. Mr. Trudeau: We’re going to
keep moving forward in a way that invests in Canadians. And that’s what we’re
going to do. Lisa: Mr. Trudeau will give
Mr. Scheer an opportunity to respond. Mr. Scheer: You called small
business owners ‘tax cheats’. You called entrepreneurs who’ve
created jobs and opportunities in our society ‘tax cheats’, all
the while protecting your trust fund and those of your
billionaire friends. What we are doing is lowering
taxes for all Canadians. We’ve got a universal tax
cut that will lower the first bracket, that will — [inaudible; multiple speakers] Mr. Scheer: We’re going
to bring in — Lisa: Mr. Bernier, would
you like to interject? Mr. Bernier: For sure. What they are doing,
they are spending, spending, and spending. Mr. Scheer: Tax cuts are
not spending. Mr. Bernier: Everybody here on
this stage are spending more money. And, you know, you cannot create
wealth when the government is spending money. You must have the right policies
for the entrepreneur actually. We want the private sector
to be able to invest. Mr. Scheer: That’s why we’re
going to undo these tax hikes. Mr. Bernier: No, you won’t
balance the budget. [inaudible; multiple speakers] Lisa: Ms. May would like
the opportunity. Ms. May: Thank you. At the beginning of the segment,
Mr. Singh pointed out that Mr. Trudeau had not
changed the climate targets from those of Mr. Harper. It needs to be said very clearly
— and I’m so disappointed, because I believed the Liberals
in 2015 that they would go with science-based,
evidence-based policies. But the target that Mr. Trudeau
is saying he will hit for 2030 is a target for
losing the fight against climate change because it
ignores the science, it ignores the IPCC advice. On this stage tonight, the Green
Party is the only party with a plan, Mission
Possible, that will actually protect us so that we can end
carbon neutrality by 2050. [inaudible; multiple speakers] Mr. Singh: What plan is this? Ms. May: Which science did
you find that matches that target? Mr. Singh: In line with the
IPCC report, and it’s to keep warming within 1.5°. Which you love to say,
and it’s very important. And I agree with you. Ms. May: I love to say it? Because it’s about our
children’s survival, which I love to protect. Mr. Singh: Here’s the thing.
To take on the climate crisis that we’re in, it’s going
to require the courage to fight big polluters. It’s going take the courage to
stand up to the massive lobbyists that Mr. Trudeau
has caved into and the reason why we continue to pay subsidies
to the fossil fuel sector. We would immediately end
those subsidies — Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Singh, Ms. May,
the experts are agreed that what a climate plan needs to do
is to be ambitious and doable. And of the plans that are
forward here on this stage, there is only one plan that the
experts have qualified as both ambitious and doable, and that
is the plan that we have begun to put in place over
the past 4 years. Lisa: Last word. Mr. Scheer: Mr. Trudeau’s
plan is failing. It is making everything
more expensive for hardworking Canadians. And he has granted a massive
exemption to the country’s largest emitters. Our plan takes the climate
change fight global recognizing that Canada can do more to fight
climate change by exporting our clean technology and helping
other countries lower their emissions. Lisa: And that concludes —
that is all the time we have for the open debate. That concludes this segment. You had an opportunity.
You got to jump right in. So thank you, all, very
much for the conclusion of that segment. ♪ ♪ Althia: Hello. I’m Althia Raj fromHuff Post
, and the theme of this segment is polarization,
human rights and immigration. And we’ll begin with my question
to NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh. Mr. Singh, I want to
ask you about Bill 21. Your campaign is about courage,
but you have not shown the courage to fight Québec’s
discriminatory law. It bars individuals who, like
yourself, wear religious symbols from some
provincial employments. If you were prime minister,
would you stand back and allow another province
to discriminate against its citizens? Aren’t you, and frankly the
other leaders on the stage, putting your own party’s
interests in Québec ahead of your principles
and the equality rights of all citizens? You have a minute to answer. Mr. Singh: Sure. It’s probably pretty obvious to
folks that I am obviously against Bill 21. It is something that hurts
me, makes me feel sad. I think about all the times
I grew up being told I couldn’t do things
because of the way I looked. And I think about all the people
in Canada that grow up being told you can’t achieve
more because of their identity or who they are. And I think about the people in
Québec right now that are being told just because they
wear a hijab that they can’t be a teacher, or if they wear a yarmulke,
they can’t be a judge. And that’s hurtful,
and it’s wrong. It probably comes as no surprise
that I’m opposed to laws that divide people. What I do every single day
when I go to Québec, I say, hey, I’m here, I’m
someone that believes in fighting the climate crisis. I’m someone that believes in
firmly and unequivocally the rights of women, the
right of a woman to choose and to build more access
to abortion services. I believe firmly in making sure
we tackle the powerful corporations that are
influencing government and that are not allowing — that are challenging our
ability to ensure that we build services that
lift up people. I’m doing that every
single day. Althia: Thank you. Mr. Scheer, you and Mr. Singh
may debate this question. Mr. Scheer: Well, Mr. Singh,
I just want to start off by congratulating you on the way
you’ve handled so many issues around race and identity. Someone who has been the victim
of these types of racist acts in the past, I certainly believe
you have handled it with a lot of class. Especially as it relates to some
of the scandals that have come out during this campaign. I believe it’s very important
for people to understand that while we will not
intervene in this court case, as a Conservative government,
we do recognize and the Conservative Party always stands
for freedom and equality and individual liberty, and we
will make sure that — we will not pursue this type
of bill at the federal level. Mr. Singh: I want to just
touch on one of the themes of this discussion,
polarization. And while Bill 21 is
going to single out people because of the
way they look, another thing that’s happening
in our country right now is that people are being pit
against each other. And what’s happening is people
who can’t find a home, can’t afford their bills, can’t
get the medication or healthcare they need, are being
told it’s not the fault of powerful corporations and
those who are not paying their fair share, but it’s
the fault of new Canadians. It’s the fault of
a 12-year-old refugee, or an immigrant who’s breaking
his back working 12 hours a day. And that’s why it’s important
for us to tackle economic security if we want to
tackle the polarization. Althia: Thank you, Mr.
Scheer and Mr. Singh. Ms. May, you may debate
Mr. Singh on this question. Ms. May: I want to also echo
Andrew’s comments because I think Jagmeet has done,
as we all have done through this rather strange period of
an election campaign, confronting issues of privilege
and anyone with white skin has privilege. But when we look at
Bill 21 in Québec, I think it challenges
all of us. Like the NDP, the Green
Party opposes Bill 21. And then we’re left with
the question of what is the best way for a federal
government to protect human rights within Québec. Québecers are fighting
this out within Québec. Québec groups are going
to court to say that Bill 21 discriminates. And as that goes forward, we
are, frankly, looking at a situation where we don’t
want to do anything that hurts that debate
within Quebec. Mr. Singh: I understand. What I want to also just touch
on, while Bill 21 is of course polarizing, on that
point — I know you agree with me on this — we’ve
got to tackle the powerful corporations that are not
paying their fair share. And that’s part of the reason
why people aren’t able to earn a good living and part
of the reason why people can’t find housing or can’t get
the medication they need. Because those at the top aren’t
paying their fair share. Ms. May: It’s not even about
paying their fair share. I think we’ll
agree on this. Althia: Okay, thank
you very much. Ms. May, thank you.
Ms. May, thank you. Mr. Blanchet, your turn
to debate Mr. Singh. Mr. Blanchet: Yes.
With 70 percent — Mr. Singh: I’ll give you
more than 10 seconds. Mr. Blanchet: You’re nice. With 70 percent of the
population of Quebec supporting Bill 21, and 70 percent of
the members of Parliament in Quebec supporting Bill 21
it’s hardly a polarization issue in Québec.
That’s the problem. The problem is that —
and in English tonight it will be quite clear —
everybody here has problems with the very idea of, I will
say it because there is no word for that in English. Everybody has a problem with it,
but say in best of cases that they would tolerate it. But Québec does not need to be
told what to do or what not to do about its own values,
nor its language, nor themselves as a nation. Mr. Singh: This is a bill that
just says to people because of the way they look that
they can’t do a job. Mr. Blanchet: You know
this is not true. And you tweet that — [inaudible; multiple speakers] Mr. Singh: Instead of that,
what we should been doing — Mr. Blanchet, instead of
what we should be doing, let’s protect women’s rights. Let’s build up more protection
for a woman’s right to choose. Let’s build up more protections
for the LGBT community. Let’s build up more protections
in society to build a society where there is — Althia: Okay, thank you. Mr. Blanchet, thank you.
Mr. Singh. Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Singh
can debate this question. Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Singh, you
have spoken very eloquently about discrimination and fought
against it all your life, and that’s why it’s so
surprising to have heard you say, like every other leader
on the stage, that a federal government under you would not
intervene in the question of Bill 21 in Québec. It’s a question where, yes, it’s
awkward politically, because as Mr. Blanchet says,
it is very popular. But I’m the only one on this
stage who said, yes, a federal government might have
to intervene on this. Because a federal government
needs to protect minority rights. Needs to protect
language rights. Needs to protect
women’s rights. And needs to do that
right across the country. You didn’t say that you
would possibly intervene. You didn’t even leave
the door open. Mr. Singh: Let’s be
honest for a second here. Every single day of my life is
fighting a bill like Bill 21. Every single day of my life. Mr. Trudeau: So why not fight
it if you form government? Mr. Singh: Every single day
of my life is challenging people who think that you
can’t do things because of the way you look. Every single day of my life I
channel the frustrations of people who feel
that as well. Like many people across
our country are told they can’t achieve what they
want because of how they look. Mr. Trudeau: So why not
act on your convictions and leave the door open
for challenging it? Althia: Okay, thank you,
Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Singh. Mr. Bernier, your chance to go
head to head with Mr. Singh. Mr. Bernier: Yes,
about the Bill 21, we must respect the
Constitution. And we won’t interfere
at the federal level. That’s the definition from
the provincial government. And that’s what we must do. But also, Mr. Singh, you said
that you didn’t want me to be here on this stage to have
a discussion with you. So you’re for diversity, but
what about diversity of opinion? I have the right to have
another opinion about immigration. And I don’t know why you’re not
— you’re a leader and you must be trying to have
everybody on your side — but are you believing — Mr. Singh: Let me
answer that question. I can answer that question. Mr. Bernier: Are you believing
in free speech only when people are saying things
that you want to hear? Mr. Singh: You’re asking,
let me answer it. After a couple of minutes of
this debate tonight, I think people can clearly see why I
didn’t think you should deserve a platform. The comments that you’re making,
the type of things you say — it’s one thing to say that
you disagree with somebody, that’s fine, but when
you incite hatred — Mr. Bernier: No I don’t!
No, it’s not true. You cannot say that. [inaudible; multiple speakers] Mr. Singh: You insult a young
girl, ask about her mental stability, it
shows a lack of judgment. You don’t deserve a platform, and I’m happy to challenge
you on that because your ideas are
hurtful to Canada. I will always work to build
unity, bring people together. Unlike you. Althia: Okay, thank
you very much. Merci, Mr. Bernier.
Thank you, Mr. Singh. Continuing with our theme of
polarization, human rights, immigration, we have people
watching this debate right across the country,
including a big crowd at the Student Union Building at the
University of British Columbia. And our next question comes from
Paige McDicken who joins us from Vancouver. Please go ahead, Paige. Paige: Hi, good evening. Hi, good evening. My name is Paige McDicken, and
I’m here tonight at U.B.C., but I live in Coldstream,
British Columbia. My question is along the lines
of polarization and, to me, Canada feels more divided
than ever before. If diversity is our strength,
but division is weakness, how will your leadership seek
to provide a unified vision for Canada and how will you
ensure that all voices across the political spectrum
are heard and considered? Thank you. Althia: Mr. Singh,
you may begin. You have 40 seconds. Mr. Singh: Sure. Paige, thank you so
much for the question. I appreciate getting a
chance to chat with you. Thanks for tuning in. When you talk about the
divisions we have in our country, there are a lot of
divisions, and they’re growing. And I point to a lot
of reasons for it. There’s radicalization,
there’s hateful discourse, there’s a climate which allows
people to be emboldened. But the other reason why
people are being exploited into hating one another is
because they’re worried about the future. There’s a lot of people
that can’t get the basic things they need — like housing, the
healthcare they need. And it’s really the neglect
of the federal government that have brought us
to this position. And I think the way we tackle a
lot of the polarization is making sure people get
the basic things they need. Like housing, healthcare. Althia: Thank you very much. Mr. Scheer, your turn. Mr. Scheer: Well, it’s very
important that we understand why Canada is a country
of such diversity. It’s because people come
from all over the world to take refuge here,
to build a better life here. It is because of our freedom. That is the common ground that
everyone who has come here, no matter what
generation, no matter from what part of the world,
can agree on. And it’s important that
we remember that, promote that and ensure that
people who come here embrace that aspect that
makes our country so great. But what is very dangerous
is when you have a prime minister like
Justin Trudeau who uses legitimate issues like racism
and hateful language to demonize anyone who disagrees with him, calling people un-Canadian for
disagreeing with his failure on the border — Althia: Thank you very much. Mr. Scheer, I’m sorry. Ms. May, your turn. Ms. May: Thanks, Paige,
and hey to you, B.C. Thank you. I raise my hands to the
Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh territory. We need the kind of leadership
that lifts people up, that doesn’t make people feel
as if politics is rather disgusting and they’d
rather not look at it. We have to restore the idea of
real democracy where every citizen has agency and
power to work together. Mission Possible for
climate action. We call all hands on deck.
We’re going to need everybody. And to have the kind of
democracy that really reflects everyone, we need fair voting. We need to get rid of
first-past-the-post, because it creates each
political party as rival warring camps, even when
the elections are over. Althia: Thank you
very much, Ms. May. Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Blanchet: Yes. I believe that democracy
grows on information. So translating with people, by
vote for people who look like you is at best dishonest. And may I remind you that
in 2011, the exact same phrase was said by
Michael Ignatieff. That in 2015, the same sentence
was said by Thomas Mulcair. So people — Althia: Thank you very much.
I’m sorry, you’re out of time. Mr. Trudeau? It’s 40 seconds
for each leader. Ms. May: It says 45 on… Althia: I’m sorry.
It has moved on to 40, sorry. Everybody has the same time.
It’s Mr. Trudeau’s time. Thank you. Mr. Trudeau: Thank you,
Paige, for your question. It’s great to see
everyone at U.B.C. One of my alma maters. It’s really important to
recognize that, yes, we’re in a time of polarization
and differences that get highlighted by the
kind of debate going on at this stage and
in this campaign about how we’re moving forward. The reality is Canadians
agree on most things. We want to raise our kids in a
world that is getting better for them. We want to be able to
pay for their futures. We want to be able to
retire in comfort. We want to create opportunities
for our neighbours as well. This is something that binds
Canadians together right around the country. And the fact that there
is a politics of fear and division that is
continuing to dominate here underlies what we’re actually
doing together as a country. Althia: Thank you very much,
Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Bernier. Mr. Bernier: Speaking
about immigration, it is not polarization. Actually Canada receives more
immigrants per capita than any other Western country. Three times higher
than the U.S. So we must have a
discussion about that. It is the equivalent of one Nova
Scotia every three years, the population of Nova
Scotia every three years here in Canada. So you know, they all are
for mass immigration. I’m for a sustainable
immigration. And that’s why we must
have fewer immigrants, the maximum
of 150,000 a year with more economic immigrants
for our country. Althia: Thank you very
much, Mr. Bernier. We are moving on to a
one-on-one format followed by an open debate. We start with Conservative
leader Andrew Scheer. You may pick any leader
of your choice and ask any question
of your choosing. [laughter/applause] Althia: You have 30 seconds. Mr. Scheer: Mr. Trudeau, you
broke ethics laws twice. You interfered in an ongoing
criminal court proceeding. You shut down parliamentary
investigations into your corruption and you fired the
only two people in your caucus who were speaking out against
what you were trying to do, just for telling the truth. Tell me, when did you decide
the rules don’t apply to you? Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Scheer, the
role of a prime minister is to stand up for Canadians’
jobs, to stand up for the public interest, and
that’s what I’ve done and will continue to do
every single day. The way I have worked for
Canadians is around investing in them. Unlike the vision you’re putting
forward of giving tax breaks that help people who are
making $400,000 a year more than someone making
$40,000 a year. You’re offering a $50,000 tax
break, which is more money than most Canadians earn to
the wealthiest Canadians with your plan. Of course, we don’t entirely
know your plan because you haven’t released
your costed platform yet, which I think is a disrespect to
every Canadian watching tonight. Mr. Scheer: Where’s your
costed platform? Half of it isn’t costed. Althia: Mr. Scheer, you will
have a chance to rebut. Mr. Trudeau: Our platform came
out weeks ago, and we worked with the Parliamentary Budget
Officer and we have a vision, but it is a different
vision than yours, because we’re choosing
to invest in people. You’re choosing, just like
Doug Ford did, to hide your platform from Canadians and
deliver cuts, cuts to services and cuts to
taxes for the wealthiest. Althia: Mr. Scheer, you
may begin to rebut. And anybody is free
to join in. Mr. Scheer: You know, you’re
making things up again. Half of your platform
isn’t even costed. You’re making announcements
without any details. And without any numbers. You aren’t telling Canadians — Mr. Trudeau: This is
entirely untrue. You’re the one who is hiding
your platform from Canadians. Mr. Scheer: We know that taxes
will go up under your government if you’re re-elected. We started off talking about — [inaudible; multiple speakers] Mr. Scheer: You looked Canadians
in the eye and you said the allegations inThe Globe
and Mail
were false. You said Jodie Wilson-Raybould
never came to you. You said you never
put pressure on her. We now know that those
were all lies. You have failed to tell the
truth in a corruption scandal. Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Scheer, the
responsibility of any prime minister is to
stand up for jobs. And what you’re saying is you
wouldn’t have done that. Mr. Scheer: The CEO of
SNC-Lavalin said they’d never threaten jobs or
moving their headquarters. You are making that up again. Mr. Singh: What we have here is
Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Scheer arguing about who is
worse for Canada. Really we got to start
presenting who’s going to be best for Canada. And when we think about what
Canadians are going through, Mr. Scheer, your small tax cuts
are not going to help a family that’s struggling with the
cost of childcare, which costs thousands
of dollars a month. Your small tax cuts aren’t
going to help out a family that’s struggling with
the cost of medication that can cost hundreds
of dollars a month. Mr. Scheer: Canadians are
struggling to get by, and we’re going to put more
money in their pocket. $850 with the universal tax cut. Mr. Singh: Let me
finish my point here. We’re going to same families
money by investing in pharmacare for all, which is going to save
families over $500 a month. [inaudible; multiple speakers] Mr. Singh: We’re going
to invest in childcare — let me finish my point. We’re going to invest in
childcare which is going to save families thousands
of dollars a month. And we’re going to make sure
that those families that earn less than $70,000
get dentacare. That’s going to save families
at least $1240 a month. Mr. Bernier: Where will
you find the money? Mr. Singh: This is the
Conservative spin, where we’re going to find
the money is this: we’re going to ask the
wealthiest Canadians, those who have wealth
of over $20 million, those who have fortunes
of over $20 million, we’re going to ask them to
pay a little bit more. Yes, we think they should. It’s only going to apply to — Ms. May: You know what’s
fascinating about that proposal, because we have the
same proposal in our budget. When the Parliamentary Budget
Office reviews them guess what they find is the
single biggest uncertainty when we go for revenues
from the wealthiest? They’re worried that they’ll
hire lawyers and avoid paying that tax. If you go look at the
Parliamentary Budget Office reviews, people said ‘oh, well,
the Green Party is proposing to spend a lot of money’. Yes, on pharmacare, yes on
childcare, abolishing tuition, and the weakness, they say,
in our revenue sources is that wealthy Canadians will
continue to hire lawyers and evade their taxes. I think that’s shocking. I think we need to say to
people, this is the most beautiful, blessed country
on earth, and if you have wealth, you have obligation,
you have responsibility. Mr. Blanchet: If I may — Ms. May: Pay your taxes. Mr. Blanchet: I seem
to remember — Mr. Singh: People have got to
contribute their fair share. Makes sense. Mr. Bernier: I seem to remember
that Mr. Scheer referred to remember that Mr. Scheer
the SNC-Lavalin scandal. And I want to speak for
3,400 innocent people that did nothing wrong. When Mr. Trudeau tried to find
a solution, he did it the wrong way and he admitted it. What you are doing, Mr. Scheer,
is playing this old card. You’re trading the idea that
Québec is corrupt. Those 3,400 people have
done nothing wrong. Now the value of the
shares are going down. The employees are leaving. Mr. Scheer: Mr. Blanchet,
with all due respect, there is never an excuse
for a prime minister to interfere in an
independent court case. We do not want to live in a
country where someone can abuse the power of their office
to reward their friends and punish their enemies. Mr. Blanchet: And those people
have to pay the price for that. Innocent people pay the
price for that. Mr. Bernier: I just want to add,
Andrew, that I was the only leader who said no corporation
is above the law. I was the only one
who said that. Mr. Scheer: That’s not true. Ms. May: I think I said
that, too, Max. It may be the only thing
on which we agree that no corporation
is above the law. And we need an inquiry into
what went on — Mr. Bernier: Good, it’s
a nice beginning. Althia: What a wonderful
show of unanimity on this wonderful topic. And that wraps up this
topic and this segment. Thank you very much. ♪ ♪ I’m Susan Delacourt from
theToronto Star. Welcome, leaders. I’m moderator for the next theme
which will be Indigenous issues. We’re going to begin this
segment which was also chosen by random draw with my
question to Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. So here it is. Mr. Scheer, you’ve said that a
Conservative government would focus on practical things in its
relationship with Canada’s Indigenous people. As you pursue your promised
energy corridor, practically speaking, how will you consult,
accommodate, and obtain consent from Indigenous peoples? And what will you do when your
plans come into conflict with Indigenous rights
and interests? Mr. Scheer: Well, thank you
very much for the question. And as someone who has 12 First
Nations reserves in his riding, I understand the importance of
balancing treaty rights and also the ability for
Indigenous Canadians to participate in the economy. That really is the key. And what I’ve said is that a
Conservative government will ensure that the proposal for
the national energy corridor takes into account Indigenous
concerns by ensuring that a cabinet minister is
responsible specifically for Indigenous consultations. And unlike the court ruling
that found that the current government mishandled the
consultations under the TMX Pipeline, we will ensure that
it’s dynamic, that it is more than just ticking a box and
listening to concerns. It’s actually addressing
those concerns. But we have to remember that
we have to get to a place in this country where big
things can get built again. And duty to consult means
that concerns are heard and addressed. But that also we find a path
to letting things get built in this country. Susan: Ms. May. Ms. May: Thank you. I am appalled by the fact that
Mr. Scheer has forgotten that there was a duty to consult
on the Harper government as well and that they also
violated in the findings of the court, identical to Trans Mountain
on the case of Enbridge. It’s the United Nation’s
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples needs
to come into force of law in this country. I know you oppose it because
of debate we had atMaclean’s, but the reality is that Section
35 of the Constitution already requires consultation, and it
does not boil down to we will consult with Indigenous
people until we get them to agree with us. It is about respect, nation to
nation of Indigenous territorial rights that are inherent. Mr. Scheer: So what does free,
prior and informed consent mean for every single
Indigenous community? What about the dozens and dozens
of Indigenous communities who want these projects
to go ahead? Ms. May: Why are you prepared
to set aside the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal to
fight it in court, just as Mr. Trudeau is when they
actually found as a matter of fact that our government
committed acts that were reckless, and willful in the
violation of the rights of Indigenous children. We must live up
to that decision. Mr. Scheer: There are dozens of
Indigenous communities who want these projects to go ahead
because they know that it’s the key to prosperity
on the reserve. They know it’s the way for their
young people to get jobs. Ms. May: Territorial rights
are inherently local. I don’t want to argue.
I’ll let you talk. Susan: Mr. Blanchet,
it is now your turn. Mr. Blanchet: Thank you. You say, Mr. Scheer, that you
want to respect provinces and Québec’s jurisdiction. But when it comes to this
pipeline of yours, this — [speaking in French] which translation, I’m sorry,
in English is pipeline — you don’t fear the idea of
expropriating territories going into provinces and
saying the Constitution, yours not mine, the Constitution
says that I have the right to go through provinces,
through Québec, without their approval. And may I remind you that
Québecers and the Prime Minister of Québec have said clearly
that he does not want it. Mr. Scheer: That’s
completely false. What we’re talking about here is
addressing the environmental concerns and the Indigenous
concerns up front. Getting that out of the way so
there can be a geographic space so projects can be built again. Including Quebec. Mr. Blanchet: Now it
belongs Québec. Mr. Scheer: We’re talking about
the regulatory environment around it. And you know as well as I do
that Québecers purchase a huge percentage of their
energy from the United States. I’ve made my choice. I believe Québecers
should get — [inaudible; multiple speakers] Mr. Scheer: I made my
choice, Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Blanchet: You have done,
and Quebec will make his. Susan: Mr. Bernier, I remind
you that this is about how will we respect
Indigenous rights? Oh. Oh, Mr. Trudeau.
Sorry. Mr. Trudeau: Thank you. We all remember 10 years of
Stephen Harper who did not respect Indigenous rights, did
not respect Indigenous peoples. And Mr. Scheer, you’re putting
forward exactly the same plan that didn’t just fail Indigenous
peoples, didn’t just fail Indigenous communities and
their kids, but they also failed to get important energy
projects built. We need to keep moving forward
in a way that respects Indigenous peoples, respects
that there’s going to be a range of views, but
is grounded in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples that you have consistently blocked
through your party’s actions. That is not respect for
Indigenous peoples. Perry Bellegarde, the Grand
Chief, the Head of the Assembly of First Nation’s has
said that no government has done more for Indigenous peoples
than this government. And he’s one of your
constituents, Mr. Scheer. Mr. Scheer: That’s right.
He comes from Little Blackbear in my riding. Mr. Trudeau: He’d love
to talk to you. Mr. Scheer: He’s got
my phone number. Mr. Trudeau: I’ll ask him to
give you a phone call sometime. Mr. Scheer: I have nothing to
learn from Mr. Trudeau who fired the first
Indigenous attorney general for doing her job. She said that she would do
politics differently and you fired her
when she did. You want to talk about
getting pipelines built? You’ve cancelled two pipelines, and the one you bought,
you can’t build. You’ve let tens of thousands of
people in Alberta and Saskatchewan down. And you have failed to
recognize that Indigenous communities are hurt
by this as well. Mr. Trudeau: I am accepting the
fact that I’m going to be attacked for not building
pipelines from some and for building
pipelines for others. [inaudible; multiple speakers] Susan: I think we’ll be
talking about this more. Mr. Scheer: You’re
doing nothing. Susan: Mr. Bernier? Mr. Bernier: Mr. Scheer,
you’ve said that you’re ready for building pipelines all
across this country by the private sector. But at the same time, you said,
you know, Québecers are ready to buy oil and gas from Canada. I agree with that. I agree that Québecers know
that it’s safer to transport oil and gas by pipelines
than by trains. But at the same time, the Québec
government said that there is no social acceptability for
a pipeline in Québec. What will be your
position on that? Do you think that
you’ll be able to use the Constitution, because after
consultation, if we don’t have any agreement, we must be
able to use the Constitution, Section 92.10, to be able
to build a pipeline. When you do that, the federal
government will have the full authority, the full jurisdiction
to approve the pipeline. But what you’re saying, you’re
for pipelines, but you don’t have the courage to use the
Constitution to be sure that we’ll have pipelines in this
country for the unity of our country and the prosperity
of our country. Mr. Scheer: That’s just
not the case at all. I’ve always said the government
must stand up for federal jurisdiction. We respect provincial
jurisdiction. When you’ve got the best idea,
I’m convinced I can get support for this project. Mr. Bernier: You don’t have
the support in Québec, you don’t have the
support in B.C. Mr. Scheer: Québecers know
that it’s better to take energy from western Canada than
the tanker after tanker of foreign oil coming up the St.
Lawrence, or oil and gas coming from Donald
Trump’s economy. I know Québecers will support
this project because it will also allow them to share
their hydro-electrical power with other provinces as well. Susan: Mr. Singh? Mr. Singh: I want to talk
about a recent decision. The Human Rights Tribunal
of Canada found that the Harper government and Mr.
Trudeau’s government willfully and recklessly
discriminated against Indigenous kids. These are kids that weren’t
getting equal funding. Then there’s a landmark decision
that said these kids should get equal funding. And it was received as, finally,
some justice for those kids. Then Mr. Trudeau now, and his
government, are going to appeal that decision. He wanted to fight hard to keep
SNC-Lavalin out of the courts, but he’s going to drag
Indigenous kids to court. That is wrong. How could someone do that? How could someone do that? Mr. Scheer: This decision will
have huge ramifications for several aspects of the way the
federal government provides services to Indigenous
Canadians. It also is a very large
significant settlement amount, and I believe when you’re
dealing with these types of important public policy issues,
that it’s legitimate to say it should be reviewed —
have a judicial review. Mr. Singh: I disagree of
course, but I want to talk about one other issue. We’re talking about
Indigenous issues. I went to Grassy Narrows
again just recently. We’ve got a community impacted
by mercury poisoning, and an Indigenous activist went
to a private fundraiser where Mr. Trudeau mocked that
Indigenous activist saying “thank you for your donation.” To someone living with
mercury poisoning. What kind of prime
minister does that? Mr. Scheer: I wish I
had that answer. But one that doesn’t
deserve to be re-elected. Susan: That’s time for this
section of the debate. The open debate is over, but
we continue on our theme of Indigenous affairs. We have a question from an
audience member here in Gatineau. Natasha Beedie. Go ahead, Natasha. Natasha: Good evening. As a member of Beausoleil First
Nation, my question is this, if elected, how would your
parties work with provinces and territories on recognizing and
affirming Indigenous rights, specifically noting the U.N.
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action, and the calls
for justice in the recent Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women and Girls Inquiry. Miigwech. Susan: The leaders will all
have a chance to answer this question.
Thank you, Natasha. Starting with Mr. Scheer. Mr. Scheer: Thank you
very much for the question. Of course there’s a lot
there for just 40 seconds. There are many areas in the
Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women report that Conservatives
have been calling for for quite a while. Including combating
human trafficking. Something that is
very important. Also, we support preserving
Indigenous languages by ensuring that the federal government
does what it can to prevent some of the languages that
are at risk of being lost to preserve them. When we’re talking about the
U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we need
to remember that when you talk about free, prior and informed
consent, that leaves a great deal of uncertainty
about what that means. And there are large numbers
of Indigenous communities who want these energy
projects to succeed, and we need certainty and
clarity around that. Susan: All right. We will now go
to Ms. May. Ms. May: Natasha,
miigwetch. It’s an extremely important
question and Greens across the country
are united in this. We will honour the U.N.
Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It must be brought into
law in this country. And our existing web of
laws and regulations, which were properly
described by the Inquiry on Missing and
Murdered Indigenous Women as constituting
structural violence must be reviewed
and brought up to the standard of the
United Nations Declaration. We must bring in the
recommendations of the Inquiry into the Missing
and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the
calls to action of The Truth and
Reconciliation Commission. It is not a
short-term project. It is on us as settler
Canadians to bring justice. Susan: Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Blanchet: We also support
the Declaration of the United Nations on the Rights
of Indigenous People. I do believe and I spend
the most beautiful moments of this campaign with people
from the First Nations. They are nations as well
as Canada is a nation and Québec is a nation. A nation does not put
its culture, its language its heritage in the
hands of another nation. So what they ask for, and
they have to ask because we are not — we are no
better than they are, to represent themselves,
is that all those reports and inquiries and
declarations, bring something real and respectful
for them. Susan: Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau: Thank you,
Natasha, for the question. We have moved forward on
reconciliation in ways that no previous
government has been able to, but I’m the first to
recognize there is much more to do. We lifted 87 long-term
boil-water advisories and we’re on track to
lifting 50 more. But we’re continuing to
invest in communities on the issue of child
and family services. We recognize the
tribunal’s ruling that says children need
to be compensated and we will be
compensating them. But we’ve also moved forward
to end the tragedies by moving forward on
legislation that keeps kids in care in their communities
with their language, with their culture. We also want to move
forward with Grassy Narrows with the community
on a treatment centre and money is not the
objection to investing in what they need in
that treatment centre. Susan: Thank you. Mr. Bernier. Mr. Bernier: No other
leader is ready to build a new relationship with
our First Nations. They all support
the status quo. But the system
is broken. We still have extreme
poverty on reserve. We need a bold reform. And we are the only party
that will try to implement property rights on reserve
and also establish a new relationship
based on self-reliance for these communities. We need to build a new
system working with them, but that is not
what they want. Because we cannot fix
the system right now if we don’t do a bold reform
and we are ready for that. Susan: Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh: Thank you so
much for the question. Really, it’s a matter
of respect and dignity. All of the issues you
raised come down to the basic question of
respect and dignity. One of the first things
we’d do, we wouldn’t take indigenous kids to court
and challenge a decision that says they were
willfully and recklessly discriminated against. We wouldn’t do that. We would immediately
address issues of justice. That means implementing
all the recommendations from the reports that are
so powerful and have a guideline toward
solving the problems. We’d make sure there is
clean drinking water. I don’t accept any excuses
why we can’t in 2019. We’d make sure that we’d
implement clean housing, good quality housing and
education and welfare services. We can do these things. Susan: Thank you. Now we have time for another
leader-to-leader debate on any topic. Leading this one off will
be Green party leader, Elizabeth May. Elizabeth, you have, I
believe, one minute. Ms. May: Thank you,
thank you, Susan. My question is to
Justin Trudeau. Picking up from this very
fractured discussion on indigenous issues,
but let’s face it, right now indigenous peoples, the
Assembly of First Nations are telling us their
number one concern is climate emergency. And we need to focus
on real solutions. It’s not good enough to
have better rhetoric than Mr. Scheer, and with
all respect to Mr. Singh, it’s not about
rhetoric. It’s about a target
grounded in science. And to do that we need 60
percent reductions by 2030, not Mr. Singh’s
38, not your 30. Will you, Mr. Trudeau,
join with all of us in an inner cabinet that gets
rid of the partisanship and says after this election,
we move to protect our children’s
future together? Susan: Mr. Trudeau,
your answer. Mr. Trudeau: We recognize
that targets are important; we’re going to be surpassing
the targets we inherited, but targets are
not a plan. We have a real plan
that has delivered over the past four years
on our way to banning single-use plastics, on
putting a price on pollution right across the
country, in a way that returns money
to Canadians. Unlike what Mr. Scheer is
saying, most Canadians better off. 80 percent of Canadians
better off with a price on pollution than they
will be when he rips up our climate change if he
were to form government after this election. We will continue to do the
things that need to be done and bring Canadians
along with it. Our plan is realistic and
ambitious and doable. And that is what
Canadians need. Because the danger of not
acting on the environment is tremendous. The danger of not having
a plan for our future, either the environment
or the economy, is going to be
borne by our kids. Susan: Ms. May, you may
now begin open debate. There is 3 minutes
and 45 seconds. Ms. May: The
science is clear. Your target is a
commitment to failure, that’s why it’s so
doable and achievable, because it doesn’t do what
the IPCC says we must do. We must go off fossil
fuels as quickly as possible. You bought a pipeline. You can’t be a climate
leader and spend $10 to $13 billion more on a project
that by itself blows through our
carbon budget. Mr. Trudeau: A slogan is
not a plan, Ms. May. Ms. May: We
have a plan. Mr. Trudeau: It is
an unrealizable plan. Canadians need action
that is going to actually make us better,
fight climate change, protect the environment and
build a stronger economy for our kids. That’s what we have — Ms. May: With all
due respect — Mr. Trudeau: We have done
more in the past four years than any government in the
history of Canada. Ms. May: No, that’s
not true. Paul Martin did more. No one remembers Paul
Martin’s plan in 2005; it was better. [talking over each other] Mr. Trudeau: Over the
past four years we delivered on it. Susan: Can we let some
other leaders in? Ms. May: Having a four-story
building and getting a one-story ladder
doesn’t do it. Mr. Scheer: That is
completely false. And just because you say
something over and over again doesn’t make it true. Mr. Trudeau: It would be
nice for you to learn that, Mr. Scheer. [audience laughter] Mr. Scheer: There is no
Canadian that believes they’re going to
be better off by paying a carbon tax. You have given a massive
exemption to the country’s largest polluters. Mr. Trudeau: Economists,
the experts, the parliamentary budget officer points out
that 80 percent of Canadians are better off under our — Mr. Scheer: He had to trust
the numbers you gave him. Nobody believes
your numbers, Justin. Mr. Trudeau: You do not want
to act on climate change. [talking over each other] Susan: One at a time. Mr. Singh and then
Mr. Bernier. Mr. Singh: I want to say
this directly to Canadians. You do not need to
choose between Mr. Delay and Mr. Deny. There is another
option out there. We are committed to a real
plan that is going to take on the biggest polluters,
it’s going to take on the powerful interests, because
that’s what we need to do if we want to build
a better future. Ms. May: What is
your target? Mr. Singh: It’s going to
mean taking on the powerful. Ms. May: You can take
on the powerful, but you to need to have
a plan that is rooted in targets that
saves our kids’ future. [talking over each other] Mr. Singh: We’re
prepared to do that. Mr. Bernier: People must
know that Mr. Scheer and Mr. Trudeau, you’re the
same on climate change. You want to impose carbon
tax on Canadians and you want to impose more
costly immigration. Mr. Blanchet: I think that’s
most thing you’ve said all night, Max, that we’re
the same on climate change. Mr. Bernier: You want to
impose also a big tax on the big emitters. So, you’re the same on climate
change and you won’t be able to achieve your target. Mr. Blanchet: You and I
have to find some common ground when we get into
that House of Commons. Ms. May: I don’t think
it’ll be on JNL Quebec and the fact that you’re
supporting a project that blows through more
of the carbon budget against the will of
many Quebecers and threatens the
St. Lawrence River. Mr. Blanchet: This is
not what I had in mind when I provided
answers to that. I think the goal should be
down to almost nothing. Not 30, not 60, but
almost nothing. What do you think about this
idea of equalization based on gas emissions? Those who are over the
average emissions of Canada pay, and those who are
under the average emissions get the money. The incentive is
for both parts. Ms. May: What we have
to do is work together and, with all due respect,
that’s the question I asked Mr. Trudeau. Are any of you prepared
to accept the notion of changing status quo
decision-making so we form an internal cabinet
based on finding the existential threat
of climate change? [talking over each other] Susan: Ladies and gentlemen,
that is all the time we have. That concludes this round. Thank you very much. And onto the next one. ♪ ♪ Dawna: Hello. I’m Dawna Friesen
from Global News. I’m moderating this
segment on affordability and income security. Before I begin, I
just want to say, you’ve all been very
vigorous in your debate. Some of your comments
have gone a little long. We’re going to have to trim
a bit in terms of time, but we’ll make sure we keep
those trims fair and equal. So, on this
topic, Ms. May, I have a
question to you. Canadians are carrying
$2 trillion of household debt. That means the average Canadian
owes about $1.79 for every dollar of income he or she
earns per year after taxes. It’s never been
this high. We’re borrowing
to live. Something my parents told
me was a terrible idea. You have made a bold
promise to balance the federal budget
in five years. How do you do that without
causing more financial pain for Canadians and putting
people further into debt? What is the single biggest
thing in your policies, in your platform that will
reduce household debt? Ms. May: Thank you
for the question. I’m very pleased that we are
the party standing on stage today that has a
full platform, has the budget numbers
publicly accessible and approved as a budget that
passes muster by Kevin Page and the Institute for Fiscal
Studies and Democracy. The way to bring more public
service, to bring more help to Canadians — child
care, banning tuition, investing in
post-secondary education, pharmacare, dental programmes
for low-income Canadians — all things that make
life more affordable is not to have cuts, but
to go after places where there is revenue: offshore
money that’s being hidden, a financial
transaction tax, going after one percent tax on
people who have more than $20 million in wealth, and a
series of moves to increase the revenue coming into
the government of Canada. Now that is all, of course,
based on the current economic situation. If we hit a recession,
we would not slavishly or ideologically balance
the books, but right now we think we’ll have a
balanced budget in five years. Dawna: Mr. Blanchet, your
opportunity to debate Ms. May on this topic. Mr. Blanchet: It is
really a bad idea to borrow to live. It is a no better idea
to cut too strongly into services to people
that mainly need it. What about the idea of
cutting all subsidies to oil as we proposed to do
with bringing a law on the floor about that. How about this idea we
have green equalization, which brings money to
the government? How about cutting into
those tax shelters, including the two new ones
created by Mr. Trudeau? What about taxing and pursuing
those giants on the web that steal the money from
our advertising companies? Ms. May: In our platform,
we call for taxes on the e-commerce
companies, the virtuals, the Amazons, Googles and
Facebook, that mine billions of dollars
out of this country and pay virtually
no tax. We agree with you. We have to cut all
fossil fuel subsidies. As a matter of fact,
that was a promise made by Mr. Harper in 2009, by
Mr. Trudeau in 2015, but they’ve increased
because we’re subsidizing LNG which I’d like
to hear you answer where you are on
GNL Quebec. We need to get rid of fossil
fuels and right now we’re still giving public
funds to pipelines. Mr. Blanchet: I was the
minister responsible for the — Dawna: I’m going to
move you on, I’m sorry. Mr. Trudeau, your chance
to debate Ms. May on household debt. Mr. Trudeau: We made
a very different decision than Stephen Harper had in
the previous ten years when we decided to invest
in Canadians instead. And that decision to invest
in the middle class and people working hard to join
it lifted 900,000 people out of poverty
including 300,000 kids. We gave more support for
students going to school. We made more
supports for seniors. What that has done is
grown our economy more than a million new jobs
created, most of them full-time over the past four
years at the same time as we have reduced poverty
exceeding any targets that we had even
set forward. We’ve done that in way
that is responsible. The international
credit — Ms. May: He’s at 45 seconds
with 8 seconds left for me. Dawna: Ms. May, Ms. May. Ms. May: Can I respond? Dawna: Let’s give the
floor to Ms. May. Ms. May: The concern I have
about all these debates and I’m sure a number of
leaders on stage share it, we don’t have any
section on health costs or health care in the
course of two debates. So I want to turn this to
the affordability issue and how much more affordable
life will be for Canadians with full universal,
single-payer pharmacare. It’s in our platform. It’s partially in yours. It’s in Mr. Singh’s. We need to deliver
healthcare. Mr. Trudeau: We’ve taken
concrete actions toward that. Lowering drug prices. Ms. May: But are you
prepared to accept Eric Hoskins’
recommendations for universal, single-payer healthcare? Dawna: I’m afraid
time’s up for you. Mr. Bernier, your chance
to debate Ms. May on household debt. Mr. Bernier: Yeah,
absolutely. I look at your
platform, Elizabeth, and you know you will
spend $60 billion. Spending won’t
create any wealth. You cannot spend your
way to prosperity. We need to have more
private sector investment. And at the end, you know,
you know that our national credit card is full. We still have deficits. And Mr. Trudeau just had
$70 billion on our debt and you’ll add another $60
billion on our debt. It is not responsible. Our children will
have to pay for that. Ms. May: Your famous
private sector having got massive tax cuts when you
were in Mr. Harper’s cabinet based on being told these
were the job creators and it would be great
when they got tax cuts. They have not invested
in the economy. They’re sitting
on piles of cash. Mark Carney calls
it the dead money. We need to get that money
and do public sector infrastructure investments
like a national grid. Mr. Bernier: Do you
know where we agree? Ms. May: Global energy from
one part of the country to the other. No pipelines, by the way, but
we need an electricity grid that serves the needs
of every province and every Canadian. Mr. Bernier: What I like from
you, Elizabeth, you don’t want any subsidies to the
oil and gas industries and I don’t believe
in corporate subsidies also and corporate welfare, so
we can agree on that. Dawna: Alright, let’s
move on to Mr. Singh? Your opportunity. Mr. Singh: Thank you,
Ms. May. I appreciate that you
wanted to shift the discussion
toward health care. I think it’s one of the
biggest concerns that families have. When we look at Canadians
across the country, they can’t get the
medication they need. They can’t get the
dental care they need. They’re struggling. I met a woman in my
office in Burnaby who was covering up
her mouth because she was embarrassed
that she lost her teeth because she couldn’t get
the care she needed. And that to me is
heartbreaking in a country as wealthy as ours. I know, Ms. May, you’re
prepared to do this, but the problem is Mr. Trudeau
does not have the courage to take on the insurance and
the pharmaceutical lobbyists that don’t want
this to happen. I’m going to
make this happen. If you vote New Democrats,
we’re going to make sure we make these things happen,
because we don’t work for the powerful
and wealthy. We don’t meet with
pharmaceutical companies and then listen to them. We work for you; we
work for Canadians. We’re going to deliver
on these things. Ms. May: I hope
you’ll agree with me, we need to renegotiate
a new health accord. It’s been left
alone for too long. We need to get
back at the table. The constituents in my
riding — I just did eight debates with the local
candidates in my riding. By the way, all of you guys
can be proud, except for you, Mr. Blanchet, all of you can
be proud of the candidates you have running locally,
because I’ve been in eight debates with
them in the last week. One thing we heard from
every constituent in every Town Hall meeting is we
are suffering from a lack of family doctors. We need investment
in the health care. The wheels are
falling off the bus and we need to invest. Mr. Singh: And Mr. Trudeau
continues the same cuts brought in by the
Conservatives. Dawna: Mr. Scheer,
your opportunity. Mr. Scheer: The question
was about affordability. Dawna: And household debt. Mr. Scheer: And the entire
theme of our platform is leaving more money in
the pockets of Canadians so that they can get ahead. It’s time for Canadians
to have a break. Our universal tax cut will
mean $850 in the pocket of a hard-working
average-income Canadian. We’re going to bring back
the children’s fitness tax credit to make raising
children more affordable. We’re going to bring back
the Green public transit tax credit to make taking
the bus or the train more affordable. We’re going to help fight
climate change by bringing in the Green home
renovation tax credit, which will put money in
the pockets of Canadians and help lower emissions. We’re going pay for that. Ms. May: It won’t
lower emissions. The costs will go
through the roof. Mr. Scheer: The way we’re
going to pay for those is by cutting corporate
welfare and reducing Canada’s foreign aid
budget by 25 percent. So we’re going to stop
sending money to the relatively well-off
countries; we’re going to bring that home so
Canadians can get ahead. Ms. May: Mr. Scheer,
that may be the worst idea in your whole non-platform is
the cutting of foreign aid. I wear this little pin. This is the sustainable
development goals of the United Nations to which
this country is committed. Ending poverty within next
decade within Canada and globally is
actually possible. But not if we ever
had the misfortune of having your short-term,
misguided, greedy and selfish policies. Mr. Scheer: It’s not
greedy to put money into the pockets
of Canadians. Dawna: We’re going to
stop you there. Ms. May: It destabilized the
world, what you’re proposing. Dawna: We’re going to stop
you there so that we can hear from another
Canadian, please. On the theme of
affordability, one of the many places
Canadians are watching tonight is in Yellowknife,
Northwest Territories. Here’s the scene at the
Copper House Restaurant. And earlier we heard a
question on affordability from Scott Marsden. Hi, my name is Scott Marsden
from Yellowknife. My question is, what is
your government going to do about the growing crisis
of income inequality and affordability
in Canada? Dawna: Ms. May,
first to you. Ms. May: I’ve been
in that restaurant. Hello, Yellowknife. Good to see you. We must act for
income equality. We need to look at the
fact that over the years, the gap between the very
wealthiest Canadians and the average Canadian
is continuing to expand. We’re calling for
a tax commission. We haven’t had a
proper tax commission since the 1960s to
examine our tax code, to see if it’s
still progressive, to find out if all these
corporate boutique tax cuts that have piled up
one after the other after successive governments
is taking money away from those Canadians
who need it most and allowing those who
really have massive incomes to continue, as many Auditor
Generals have found, to be treated by Canadian
Revenue agencies as if they have special status
and don’t have to pay their taxes. Dawna: Ms. May, thank you. Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Blanchet: First, I must
say that, if saying untrue things at the end of time,
is your way to do things, collaboration might
be done already. However, about the issue. If federal government was
to respect jurisdiction of provinces, it would
take less time. It would cost less money. And provinces in Québec
could do what they have to do about
health care. Bring the money that is owed
to Québec and provinces. This is what
has to be done. The money should be given
to provinces and Québec, because it is mostly — if
not only their jurisdiction. That helps people. Dawna: Mr.
Trudeau, to you. The question is about
income inequality and what you would do? Mr. Trudeau: We recognize
that we need to help people more directly. That’s why the first thing
we did was lower taxes for the middle class
and raise them on the wealthiest
one percent. We’re moving again
forward with a tax break for low and middle
income Canadians and nothing for the wealthiest,
unlike Mr. Scheer’s universal tax credit. We’re also moving forward
by increasing the Canada child benefit which has lifted
hundreds of thousands of families out
of poverty. By 15 percent for
kids under one. We’re increasing the
Old Age Security for seniors over 75. We’re making sure students
have an easier time paying back their
student debts by not having to pay back until they’re
making $35,000 a year. We’re investing
in Canadians. Dawna: Mr. Trudeau,
thank you. Mr. Bernier, your turn. Mr. Bernier: First of all,
I think it is important to be able to have a
discussion about what is important for Canadians. We are the only party that
will balance the budget in two years. All the other parties on
this stage will spend and spend and spend. That is not a solution. The credit card is full. We will do that without
cutting services. We will cut
corporate welfare. All the corporate
welfare. $5 billion that
we can save there. All these political parties,
the only promise they do, they do everything
to get your vote. I promise you to do nothing
except balancing the budget. After that,
lower your taxes. That’s the only
responsible policy. Dawna: Mr. Bernier,
thanks. Mr. Singh, to you. Mr. Singh: I want to thank
Scott for the question. Income inequality
is massive. There is also massive
wealth inequality. And these are not just
esoteric, academic discussions. When those at the very top
do not pay their fair share, when 87 families in Canada
have the combined wealth of three provinces,
it hurts families. It means we don’t
have the funds to invest in health care, it means
we don’t have the money to invest in things
like dental care. While Mr. Trudeau likes to
talk a nice game, and I admit, he says nice words, but
what he’s done is given $14 billion to the
richest corporations to buy private jets and
limousines in the last fall economic statement. We would, instead, invest
in people, ask the super wealthy to pay their
fair share and invest in programmes to relieve
the costs on families. Dawna: Mr. Singh,
thank you. Mr. Scheer, your turn
on income inequality. Mr. Scheer: Well,
actually, Mr. Trudeau has his facts
wrong again. Our universal tax cut
drastically is much better for middle income Canadians
than his proposal. And he thinks that someone
earning $47,000 a year is somehow too rich
for a tax cut. I disagree. We also recognize that
you don’t need to tear some people down to
lift others up. Justin Trudeau’s attack
on small businesses, threatening them, making
it harder for them to grow and expand and offer the
types of opportunities that lead to the jobs that
have much higher income earnings was precisely
part of the problem over the last four years,
all the while protecting people who have
inherited trust funds. We’ll take a
different approach. We’ll ensure that our
entrepreneurs have the support they need
to grow and succeed. Dawna: Mr. Scheer,
thank you. We’re going
to move on now. I have a question for the
Bloc Quebecois leader, Yves-François Blanchet,
after which, each one of the leaders will have a
chance to debate him, one on one. Mr. Blanchet, Québec is
one of five provinces to receive federal
equalization payments in 2019 It received
$13.1 billion, the highest amount
of any province. That’s a benefit of being
part of a federal system where wealth is shared. You’ve referred to the money
as an assistance cheque. Premier Legault has said
he wants to wean Québec off equalization
payments. Do you agree with that? And, if so, how would that
make life more affordable for Canadians? Mr. Blanchet: Thank
you for the question. First, the very system called
equalization is based on some flawed reasonings. Flawed ways to
analyze things. This is why we propose
something else that would progressively
replace it. Oil provinces are very
wealthy and have developed those resources with money
from all across Canada, including Québec. And today, they are using it
as a threat over Québec, which citizens do not
want to be a passage for this oil through
their territory, because they rely on clean
energy and believe this is the only responsible
way to do things. We propose a kind of
equalization that would be based without any
constitution change on how provinces perform in
fighting climate change. Those who are over the average
pay, those who are under the average, receive the
money, giving a strong encouragement for everybody
to reduce the GHG emissions. Dawna: Alright, Mr. Blanchet,
thank you. The leaders will have a chance
to debate this one on one. One minute each. Beginning with
you, Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau: Thank
you, Dawna. Equalization exists so that
every Canadian across the country, regardless of the
province they’re born into or live in, accesses
the same quality of services right
across the country. It is not a perfect
system, but it is a system that ensures, as much
as we can, equality of opportunity
across Canada. We’ve continued to engage
with provinces across the country on updating the
equalization formula in ways that are fair. And it’s something that
continues to bind this country together. Unfortunately, you, Mr.
Blanchet, as a Sovereigntist, look for opportunities
to create fights between Québec and
the rest of Canada to advance yourself. Mr. Blanchet: We have paid
for the development of oil in Western Canada and
you make us pay again with this idea of buying a
pipeline over there. And tell me something,
what can Canadians do that a Québecer cannot do? Why would we
need — Mr. Trudeau: By definition,
a Québecer can do anything a Canadian can do, because
a Québecerisa Canadian and will remain a
Canadian under my watch. Dawna: Gentlemen, thank you. Mr. Bernier, you now have the
opportunity to debate Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Bernier: Speaking
about the equalization, I’m the only leader who
is ready to look at the equalization formula for
being sure that the formula will be less generous and
fair for every province. Let me explain. It is not fair to tax
the people out West and also in Québec,
because Québecers, you know, are proud. They want to live in
a richer province. So what we must do is give
the right incentive to provinces to develop their
own natural resources. It’s important to have a
discussion about equalization. They don’t want to
have the discussion. Let’s be less generous and
fair for every province. Mr. Blanchet: You
share this idea — Mr. Bernier: Why, because
it is important when you have people
in Alberta — [Blanchet counting down time] Mr. Blanchet: Watch
the time. Mr. Bernier: 20 percent
of people in Alberta want to have the
discussion. Mr. Blanchet:
10 seconds. Okay, Québecers
receive less money from equalization per
capita than anybody else receives it in Canada. Do you mind about
stopping those lies. Dawna: Alright,
Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Singh, your
opportunity to debate. Mr. Singh: Yes, I was
thinking about ways we can make life
more affordable. This is where I think
we can do a lot if we work together. This is one of the
things I believe we can build a better
Canada if we tackle some of the challenges
that people are facing. One of the things we hear
about a lot in Québec is the cost of health care
and that it’s not there for them when
they need it. If we work together, the
universal pharmacare plan is one where we use
the buying power of all Canadians, it’s still
delivered provincially, but we can actually buy
medication for lower costs and it will help out Quebec
and help our people. Mr. Blanchet: It is
delivered provincially. And dental care would
be, if we wanted to finance it, as a
provincial jurisdiction. You have good ideas,
but your ideas always interfere and infringe
into jurisdictions which are those of
provinces — Mr. Singh: I don’t
want to infringe; I want to work
together. Mr. Blanchet: So, if
you want to do that, please, do it
for Canada. Take our part of the money
as the Constitution allows. Mr. Singh: We can do
that and work together. The other thing we
need to do is we want to tackle the
problem of housing. Housing is something that’s
concerning a lot of people. Federal money used to be
invested in building in partnership with
provinces to build housing. We want do that again. Dawna: Mr. Scheer,
thank you. Mr. Singh, pardon me. Mr. Scheer, over to you. Mr. Singh: I don’t
know how people keep getting me
mixed up. [audience laughter] I wore a bright orange
turban on purpose today. [audience laughter] What does it take? Mr. Scheer: I’m slightly
taller than you, Mr. Singh. Dawna: Mr. Scheer, please
continue the debate. Mr. Scheer: It’s important for
Quebecers to realize that on so many issues,
Monsieur Blanchet agrees with
Justin Trudeau. He will support Justin
Trudeau’s higher taxes, he’ll support massive
deficits that will continue to put pressure on
Canadian taxpayers meaning more and more of their
dollar to goes to pay the interest on
the debt. And we know, sorry, if I could
just finish, Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Blanchet: Without
raising taxes, so you didn’t listen
or understand. Mr. Scheer: We know
that Mr. Blanchet’s priority is working
with the Parti Quebecois on sovereignty. We know if votes for
the Bloc Quebecois M.P.s mean that Justin Trudeau
stays Prime Minister, the — [speaking french] Mr. Blanchet: Do you
remember that all that you say you did for
Québecers was done. Mr. Scheer: He prefers to
purchase his oil and gas from the United States. You prefer sending
consumers’ dollars to the United States to
support that economy. I prefer Canadian energy. Mr. Blanchet: You have a
strange nature of reality. Dawna: You’ve talked
over each other and you’re both
out of time. Thank you, Mr.
Scheer. Ms. May, it’s
your turn. Ms. May: Forgive me, Dawna,
Yellowknife, Ryland I see you, congratulations for
being elected M.L.A. I’m just so excited. Now, turning to
equalization payments. We need equalization
in Canada, because we’re a country;
we’re a family. We need to think
like a family. Your proposal, Mr. Blanchet,
would be to put an extra burden on those parts of
Canada, like Alberta, that have the toughest
challenge to meet the climate crisis. We’re concerned as Greens
that we work together, that we not
alienate Alberta. Mr. Blanchet: I notice you
have to strong sensibility for Alberta since your
previous positions on oil were quite nice to them. Ms. May: No, they’re not. We’re shutting down
the oil sands by 2030. They don’t find it nice. That’s why they
deserve fairness. Mr. Blanchet: In a family
sometimes one doesn’t agree with others and
doesn’t have to be forced do what others say. Ms. May: We’re facing a
climate emergency and anyone who understands
the science — and I hope you do — because
we all marched with Greta — Mr. Blanchet: This is a
world issue and only countries do international affairs,
provinces don’t. Ms. May: We have to pull
our weight as provinces and nations and we do
it together. Dawna: We have to
move along. Thank you for that. We will end the segment
with another debate. Yves-François Blanchet,
it is your turn to ask any other leader on a
topic of your choice. Mr. Blanchet: Hmm. I wonder long time. Mr. Scheer, you said in
English a few months ago that you were strongly
against the idea of Bill 21 (indiscernible) in the
state of Quebec Then you said in French
in Quebec that you would do nothing
against that law. But your very close
collaborator, Mr. Alain Rayes, said, the day before
yesterday that you would protect the Bill 21. You said that in French,
I must I admit. You were the only
one that would protect the Bill 21 — Dawna: Can you get
to the question, please. Mr. Blanchet: Please, how
will you do that? Mr. Scheer: It’s very,
uh — the answer to this question is
very simple, Mr. Blanchet. And you know, I’ve always been
very clear on the issue. We will not intervene
in the court case that is currently
before the courts. The elected officials of
Québec have taken this decision and now
it’s before the courts. Mr. Blanchet: I said that
you would protect the law. Not tolerate the law;
protect the law. Mr. Scheer: That is exactly
what I have always said in English and French. It’s very important that
a federal government respects and protects
individual liberties and individual
human rights. We will not pursue
this court of action at a federal level. Mr. Blanchet: Your
definition — Dawna: Mr. Scheer
has the floor Mr. Scheer: It’s
quite simple. Mr. Blanchet: …same
direction? Dawna: Mr. Blanchet, Mr.
Scheer has the floor. Mr. Scheer: It’s the same
thing in French. We will not intervene
in this court case. The court case will
decide this — Mr. Blanchet: He does not say
the same thing as you do. Mr. Scheer: It’s exactly the
same position, Mr. Blanchet. You’re trying to
create confusion where it
doesn’t exist. Mr. Blanchet: It does not
mean you would protect it. I will protect it. Dawna: So, we’re going
to have an open debate. That was Mr. Scheer’s
time to answer. I apologize. Mr. Blanchet: Oh,
I am sorry. I will leave you
some of mine. Dawna: We will now have
the open debate. Mr. Blanchet,
you may begin. Mr. Blanchet: Okay. Mr. Scheer: Can I speak
now because you spoke during mine? Mr. Blanchet: Please,
go ahead. We’re still
nice people. Mr. Scheer: The issue on this
has been exactly the same from the beginning. Mr. Blanchet, I think
you’re trying to create confusion where there
doesn’t exist confusion. I’ve always been clear
in English and French; the answers have
always been the same. This is something at
the federal level we will not pursue. The Conservative Party
has always stood for individual liberty, for
fundamental human rights. It was a Conservative Prime
Minister that brought forward the Bill
of Rights. The last Prime Minister
from Saskatchewan, John Diefenbaker. Mr. Trudeau: Except, of
course, Mr. Scheer, you won’t defend a
woman’s right to choose. You’ve dismissed
L.G.B.T. protections. You haven’t apologized
for your words against L.G.B.T. Canadians
years ago. Will you recognize
and apologize? Mr. Scheer: Millions of
Canadians have a different position on this issue. Like millions of Canadians
I am personally pro-life. It’s okay in this
country to have a difference of opinion. Something you do
not recognize. Mr. Trudeau: Yes, but
Canadians need to know that to demonize people — [talking over each other] Dawna: One at a
time, please. One at a time, please. Mr. Scheer: The laws of
access on this issue have not changed for 30
years, under Liberal Prime Ministers, under
Conservative Prime Ministers. Mr. Trudeau: We know
their Prime Minister will be there to
defend them. Mr. Scheer: That is
my position. Mr. Trudeau: You have
been not unequivocal — Dawna: Let’s allow
Mr. Singh a moment. Mr. Trudeau: You’re signing
the nomination papers of people who want
to take away — Mr. Scheer: You want to talk
about nomination papers? How about your misogynist,
racist candidate in Nova Scotia? Dawna: Can we —
can we — nobody can hear what
you’re saying anymore. Mr. Trudeau: We will be
signing the nomination — Mr. Singh: A man has no place
in the discussion around a woman’s right to choose. [laughter/applause] Dawna: I know. You’re having a mini
debate over here. Can we bring in
Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh: A man has no
position in a discussion on a woman’s
right to choose. Let’s be very
clear on that. [applause] Ms. May: It’s been really
interesting for most of this campaign to hear
a lot of men arguing about what a woman’s
right should be. But having all of
you, except for Max, participate in the TVA
debate where you were perfectly happy to keep
women off the stage — I’m the only woman
leader of a party — you participated in a
debate which did not let our little girls see
there is a chance for a woman in this country
to be Prime Minister, to run as the leader
of a party. We must be clear
as all leaders, and you’re not clear, Andrew,
that we will never allow a single inch of retreat
from the hard-earned rights of women in this country. Not one inch. [applause] Mr. Singh: Does this
mean that you’re open to working with
Mr. Scheer? Mr. Blanchet: Your own
M.P.s could come up with a law against
abortion and you said you would tolerate it. Ms. May: No, I said we
don’t allow anyone to run in our party who doesn’t
hold a pro-choice position. [Scheer talking over Ms. May] Dawna: This clearly
needs more time. I’m afraid we don’t
have more time. Ms. May, thank
you very much. We’re going to
have to move on. Thank you. That concludes
our segment. ♪ ♪ Rosemary: Hi, everyone. I’m Rosemary Barton
from CBC News. Our next theme, we’ve
already talked about it a little bit, but now
we will for real. The environment
and energy. We will start with a question
from another Canadian. We’re going to go to
a gathering of people watching the debate. This time at the Halifax
Central Library. We’ll talk to Britten
Bancroft of Minto, New Brunswick, is there
and has this question. Over to you. Hi, my name is
Britt Bancroft and I’m from Minto,
New Brunswick. I believe we live in an
age of climate crisis. This is the last
election we have before a point of no
return is reached. Furthermore, I believe that
for many large corporations that pollute, the current
system of fines and penalties associated with that
polluting is just the cost of doing business. What concrete plans
does each leader have to address big
business polluting? Rosemary: Thank you, Britt. The first answer goes
to Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Blanchet: That
is very interesting. What is considered as the
most progressive system to fight climate change so
far is this agreement between California
and Québec. This trade exchange system
that forces businesses to lower their
emission through time. And it works very well. I was — I had the
privilege of completing the negotiations
of such a system and signing it. And it should be
used elsewhere. Simple taxes that return
into the pockets of people without
any change and incentive are
not the solution. Doing nothing, hoping that
some spirit will come and solve the problem is
no solution either. Rosemary: That’s
it, Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Trudeau,
over to you. Mr. Trudeau: As Mr.
Blanchet said, Québec and other
provinces, like B.C., have moved forward putting
a price on pollution. We’ve ensured that
that price is put in right across the country
because it is a mechanism that will both
lower emissions and ensure that Canadians
can afford this transition. The choice tonight is very
clear between two parties that have very different
views on climate change. Mr. Scheer wants to rip up
the only serious plan on climate change
Canada has ever had, the day after
the election. And we will
continue to do more. We recognize, we need
to do more to fight climate change. That’s why we’re going to
be surpassing our targets, that’s why we’re going to
get to net zero by 2050. Rosemary: Mr. Bernier. Mr. Bernier: At the
People’s Party, we are the only real
environmentalist party; why? First of all, we want to do
things that are possible. We want to do things that
are possible to protect our health, our air, our
environment, our water. All the other leaders
claim to save the world and to save the
climate. They cannot. Canada represents
only 1.6 percent of the green gas
emissions. And they claim also to
be able to achieve the Paris Accord
target. They cannot. They have to impose a
carbon tax of $300 a tonne to do that, and
they won’t do it. They don’t do it. They’re hypocrites. We won’t have a
tax on carbon. Rosemary: Time’s up. Time’s up. Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh: Thank you
very much. Thank you, Britt,
for your question. We’re faced with a
climate crisis; there is no
question about it. We’ve got massive forest
fires which make it hard to breathe in some
parts of Canada, in the West. We’ve got massive
flooding, which means people are losing their
homes in the East. This is a serious crisis. Now, while Mr. Trudeau has
said a lot of nice things, let’s look at
what he’s done. He’s said he’s for the
environment, but then he continues to exempt
the biggest polluters from his price
on pollution. He says he wants to fight
the climate crisis. What does he do? He continues to subsidizes
oil and gas massively. He says he’s a
climate leader. What does he do? He buys a pipeline. There is a big gap between
what Mr. Trudeau says and what he does. Rosemary: Okay, and Mr.
Scheer, over to you next. Mr. Scheer: I find myself
agreeing with you again, Mr. Singh. On the environment
like so many issues, Justin Trudeau says one
thing and then does something completely
different. He’s talking about
hitting 2050 targets? He can’t even
meet 2030 targets. He talks about ripping
up a real plan. His plan has been
proven to fail. He has given a massive
exemption to the country’s largest polluters. They were able to
negotiate themselves up to a 90 percent exemption
from his carbon tax. Meanwhile, hard-working,
commuters, moms and dads taking their kids to
school or driving to work, they have to pay the
full brunt of that. Our plan is a real plan
that takes the climate change fight global. Recognizing that we could
shut everything down — Rosemary: That’s it,
Mr. Scheer. I’m dropping
the hammer. Coming to the end
of the show. Ms. May. Ms. May: Britt, thank
you for the question. You, unlike everyone else on
the stage, clearly understand we’re up against a real
climate emergency. The intergovernmental
panel on climate change has given us hard timelines,
challenging targets. If we’re going to do
what is required, it isn’t easy. We don’t grade on a curve
and say because a plan is less ambitious, it’s
therefore more doable. If it fails to meet
the goal of holding global average
temperature to no more than 1.5°C, we fail to give our
kids a livable world. Greta Thunberg is right:
the house is on fire. Grownups then
stand up and say, kids, get to safety. We’ve got this. We’ll take care
of this for you. Rosemary: That’s it,
Ms. May. My turn now to
ask a question. And this one goes
to Mr. Trudeau. And the question is
this, Mr. Trudeau: Last fall the United
Nations International Panel on Climate Change
stressed the need to act quickly to limit
further global warming. A report from Environment
Canada says this country is warming twice as fast
as the global average. You say you are committed
to combating climate change. But your government
still proceeded with the purchase and
approval of a new pipeline to the West Coast. Given the timeline, and
given what is at stake, should Canada not be
moving more quickly away from further development
of the oil and gas sector and to that end, should
the Trans Mountain Expansion be Canada’s
last pipeline? Mr. Trudeau: We absolutely
have to move faster. We absolutely
have to do more. That’s why we put forward
an ambitious plan to continue that is
reasonable, that is doable and is going to make
sure that we get to not just surpass
our 2030 targets, but go beyond it. We’re banning
single-use plastics. We’re putting a
price on pollution right across the
country. And we are fighting those
Conservative premiers who do not want
to do their part to fight climate
change. We recognize that
transition to clean energy will not happen overnight. And while we do, we should
have less oil by rail and we need to get to new
markets so we can invest all the resources, all the
money coming in from this pipeline into that
Green energy transition, into fighting
climate change. I know that’s a big
piece of the way we move forward. How we invest in the
new economy, in that transition. That’s what we’ve done. The choice tonight is do
we pick a government that doesn’t believe
in climate change or in fighting it? Or do we continue
on the track we are and be even more
ambitious? Rosemary: I noticed
you didn’t answer the last part of
the question, whether we’re on
the last pipeline. Mr. Bernier, your turn
to debate Mr. Trudeau for one minute Mr. Bernier: Mr. Trudeau,
I think we agree we don’t agree on
climate change. I believe that there is
no climate emergency. You believe the opposite. But you won’t be
able to achieve the Paris Accord target. I’m not saying that. That is the U.N.
who said that. You need to impose carbon
tax of $300 a tonne and you don’t do that. Mr. Trudeau: In four years,
Mr. Bernier, we got — Rosemary: Mr. Trudeau,
let Mr. Bernier finish. Mr. Bernier: Elizabeth, she’s
right, and you’re right. She has a radical plan
to fight climate change; it will destroy the
economy. But what about you? You won’t be able to — Mr. Trudeau: In four
years, we made it three quarters of the
way to reaching those 2030 targets. Over the next 11 years,
including by planting 2 billion trees, we’re
going to get there. Mr. Bernier, what you don’t
understand, what Mr. Scheer doesn’t understand is you
cannot build a plan for the future of our economy
if you are not building a plan that protects the
environment and fights climate change. That’s where both of you
are completely wrong. Rosemary: Okay. Mr. Scheer, it’s
not your turn. Mr. Singh, your time to
debate Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Singh: Mr. Trudeau,
I know that you say a lot of nice things,
and you’ve said a lot of great things
on this stage today. But the problem is, you said a
lot of these things in 2015. You made it sound like you
were going to make climate a big priority. But the reality is you
did all these things: you bought a pipeline, you continue to
subsidize oil and gas, and you continue to exempt
the biggest polluters. So, what’s it going to take
now for Canadians to believe that you’re going to follow
through on your promises? What’s it going to take
for you to follow through on these commitments? Your words are
not good enough anymore. Mr. Trudeau: We have reached
three quarters of the way to achieving our
2030 targets. And we’re going to
surpass them. Mr. Singh, Canadians might
be surprised to discover that your plan is to
build a massive refinery in Alberta. And the only way to do that
is with federal subsidies because there is no private
business case for it. Your plan to build a refinery
in Alberta is worse — Mr. Singh: It’s not
our plan at all. That was not our plan. Rosemary: Mr. Singh,
Mr. Singh? Mr. Singh: That’s
not our plan. I don’t know where
you got that from. We would immediately end
fossil fuel subsidies. We’d immediately invest
in clean energy. Rosemary: That’s it. That’s time. Mr. Scheer, it’s your turn
to debate Mr. Trudeau. Same question. Mr. Scheer: When Justin
Trudeau took office, there were three major
pipeline projects ready to go. Under his watch, all
of them have failed. He had to take $4.5 billion
of Canadian tax money to put the Trans
Mountain Pipeline on life support,
and he did that by sending $4.5 billion
of taxpayers’ money to another country,
to the United States, to be invested in the oil
and gas sector there instead of here
in Canada. His answer, for his
rationale for having two campaign planes was that he
bought carbon offsets, which is just a thing that
privileged people can do to keep polluting. Justin Trudeau: No. [talking over each other] Rosemary: Mr. Scheer,
it is Mr. Trudeau’s chance to respond. Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Scheer, you
did not buy carbon offsets for your transport,
because you don’t believe climate change is real. [talking over each other] Rosemary: Mr. Scheer, no
one can hear you, please. Mr. Trudeau: You
need to act in a way that is responsible,
Mr. Scheer. And your plan is to rip up
the only serious plan to fight climate change
that Canada has ever had. Canadians know how
important this is. Rosemary: Time is up for
you as well, Mr. Trudeau. Ms. May, over to you. Ms. May: To avoid catastrophic
levels of global warming, we must double our
current target. We must listen to
science. We must not build the
Trans Mountain Pipeline. It’s not the last because
it gets cancelled, if we’re serious. You can’t negotiate
with physics, you can’t as Prime Minister,
you can’t as leader of the Liberal Party. There is a carbon budget;
it doesn’t budge. And that’s why it’s so
heartbreaking to look at you today and know you
could have done so much more the last four years. Please, god, you don’t get
a majority, this time around because you don’t
keep your promise. Mr. Trudeau: From the Rockies
to the Bay of Fundy, Conservative premiers have
gotten elected on promises to do nothing on climate
change and we need a strong federal government to fight
them to make sure that we are moving forward on
protecting the future generations from the impacts
of climate change, Ms. May. Ms. May: But your goal is
a target for failure. When you hang on to Harper’s
target of 30 percent by 2030, you are predestining us — Mr. Trudeau: We are going
to pass that target. Ms. May: Well you better
get to double that target or you’ll never get to
carbon neutrality by 2050. Rosemary: Time is
up, Ms. May. Mr. Blanchet, you can
talk to Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Blanchet: Mr. Trudeau you
claim to have done a lot, but Canada is the worst
emitter of GHG in the G20 per capita. So that’s not
much of a success. But I have two
questions from Québec. First, will you agree with the
demand of the Prime Minister of Québec, Mr. Legault,
that Québec will review the environmental issues
will have precedence over Canada’s review? Second question, do
you promise after this judgment in British
Columbia, to not ever try to have a pipeline
cross Québec, ever? Mr. Trudeau: After 10 years
of Mr. Harper’s failures to get things built, because
he did not understand, you have to work with
indigenous peoples, you have to work with
local communities, you have to respect
environmental science, we brought in a process
that does exactly that. And we work with
the provinces on ensuring there is not a duplication
of environmental oversight. That’s what Bill C-69
is all about. We know that the way
we move forward is responsible and will be
done through partnership. Mr. Blanchet: No answer. Rosemary: And that’s
the time. Mr. Trudeau, it’s now your
chance to ask a question of any other leader. You have one minute
to do so, sir. Mr. Trudeau: We cut taxes
for small businesses to 9 percent. We cut taxes
for Canadians. We know that tax breaks
for wealthy do not work to grow the economy. Ten years of Mr. Harper’s
failure has done that. Yet, Mr. Scheer’s platform —
what we’ve seen of it, because most of it is still
secret and will remain secret, apparently, like Doug Ford —
that didn’t work out so well for Ontarians —
is to reduce taxes for the wealthiest Canadians,
the multimillionaires, by $50,000, which
is more money than most Canadians
make in a year. Rosemary: Wrap it up. Mr. Trudeau: Why the
$50,000 tax break for the wealthy? Rosemary: Mr. Scheer,
one minute to respond. Mr. Scheer: First of
all, Mr. Trudeau, you seem to be oddly obsessed
with provincial politics. There is a vacancy
for the Ontario Liberal leadership. And if you’re so focused on
provincial politics, go and run for the
leadership of that party, Mr. Trudeau. [applause] Secondly, your tax policy
has meant that 80 percent of Canadian families pay
higher taxes today than when you first
took office. Mr. Trudeau: That’s
not true. Mr. Scheer: That is
exactly true. Mr. Trudeau: The child tax
benefit in that? Mr. Scheer: That was a
Conservative principle that Liberals fought against,
that you fought against. Your signature
achievement was taking a Conservative idea to send
support directly to parents. I voted against your tax hikes
on Canadians, Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau: You
voted against the Canada Child Benefit. [talking over each other] Rosemary: Okay, gentlemen,
one at a time. Mr. Scheer: We are committed
to protecting that benefit because it’s based on a
Conservative principle. [Trudeau interrupting] Rosemary: Mr. Trudeau, this is
supposed to be Mr. Scheer’s answer. We’re going to move into
open debate. Mr. Scheer: We’re going to
lower taxes for all Canadians with a universal tax cut. We’re going to bring back
the children’s sports and fitness tax. Rosemary: That’s it. That’s it, Mr. Scheer. We’ve got three minutes
on this pen debate. Mr. Trudeau:
Starting with me. Rosemary: Yes, that’s
right, sir. Off you go. Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Scheer, you
did answer the question on why you are lowering
taxes by $50,000 for multimillionaires
in this country. Maybe you’ll answer it tomorrow
in the press conference, but you haven’t
answered it tonight. Mr. Scheer: That
is just not true. You haven’t answered a
question your entire time as Prime Minister. I’ve sat across from you. You never answer
a question. Mr. Trudeau: I answer more
questions in the House of Commons — Rosemary: Mr. Trudeau, let
Mr. Scheer finish, please. Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Scheer: I am rolling
back your tax hikes on entrepreneurs, on
small businesses. You called them tax cheats. These are the people
in our community. They’re saving up
money to open — [talking over each other] Rosemary: Gentlemen, no
one can understand anything. Mr. Blanchet wants in. Mr. Blanchet: You two
should agree that you’re both experts on
multimillionaires. However, I have a
suggestion for you. How about this idea which
has been asked unanimously by Québec, of
a single tax refund. That would save
about $400 million to our combined states. Is that not a great
way to save money, make things simpler
for people, companies, businesses, and even
government? Mr. Scheer: So, you’re
talking about the single income tax return
for Québecers? Mr. Blanchet: Yes. Mr. Scheer: I am the only
federal party leader that can deliver on
that, Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Blanchet: You might find
yourself in a position where you’ll need
me to do that. Mr. Scheer: I am committed
to simplifying the lives of Québecers by ensuring that
they only have to fill out one single income tax form. Rosemary: Mr. Singh,
yes, go ahead. Mr. Singh: Mr. Scheer, you
talk a lot about tax cuts, but this is the reality. Canadians can look across
this country and see what the impacts of a
Conservative tax cut means. Translation? Cuts to education, cuts to
health care, vicious cuts to the most vulnerable
people in society. That’s what you do. The thing is, Mr. Trudeau,
you sound a lot different, you sound a lot better. But you’ve done much
of the same. You’ve given billions of
dollars to the wealthiest. And your top cabinet
ministers use tax havens. Rosemary: Mr. Scheer, you can
respond, then Mr. Bernier. Mr. Scheer: So under
Trudeau’s policy, Canadians are working harder and
harder but are barely getting by or
falling behind. Our policy will leave more
money in their pockets and we’re going to
do that, Mr. Singh, by protecting services like
health care and education. We’re going to get the
money to pay for it by cutting corporate welfare
and reducing Canada’s foreign aid budget
by 25 percent. That is going to pay
for our tax cuts for all Canadians to leave
more money in their pockets, so that they can get ahead. Mr. Singh: Not gonna work. Rosemary: Mr. Bernier. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Scheer
and Mr. Trudeau, it’s all the same. It’s all boutique
tax credit. They won’t cut tax
for every Canadian. We have a platform with
only two tax rates that will be fair
for everybody, so everybody will say the
cost of our tax reform will be $35 billion. But we will do that only
after balancing the budget. We’ll use all our
(inaudible) It’s the only responsible
way to give more money — Mr. Scheer: I have
a question. Rosemary: No, you’ve
had your chance. Ms. May wants in; Ms. May. Ms. May: With two weeks left
in this election campaign Canadians can know one thing:
at this point, Mr. Scheer, all due respect, you’re not
going to be Prime Minister. The question is going to
be on a seat count — Mr. Scheer: I’ll put
a bet on that, Ms. May. Ms. May: If we have Mr.
Trudeau in a minority or Mr. Trudeau in
a majority. Voting for Green M.P.s is
your very best guarantee, Canada, you don’t get the
government you least want. Rosemary: Mr. Scheer
can respond to that and then we’ll wrap
it up. Mr. Scheer: I’m going
to prove you wrong on that, Ms. May. You just watch on
October 21st. Ms. May: I’ll lay you
bets right now. Mr. Scheer: Mr. Bernier
said something that is completely untrue. Under Justin Trudeau, we
will see endless deficits, meaning more and more
Canadian tax dollars goes to pay the
interest on that debt. We will balance the
budget while still preserving
core services. Rosemary: Time is up. And it’s Maxime Bernier’s
chance to lead this part of the debate. You can ask one
question to any leader. 30 seconds, please. Mr. Bernier: Yes! [chuckles] Andrew, you are calling
yourself a Conservative, but you don’t want to balance
the budget in two years. You will have $70
billion on our debt. You support the cartel in
milk, dairy and poultry, knowing that a Canadian
family is paying more than $400 a
year for that. Andrew, are you a real
Conservative? No, I think you
are a Liberal. Why are you pretending
to be something you’re not? Mr. Scheer: You want to
talk about pretending to be something
that you’re not. I’m not sure which Maxime
Bernier I’m debating tonight. Was it the Maxime
Bernier from the 1990s, who was the separatist? Was it the Maxime Bernier
who was minister responsible for handing out
corporate welfare? Was it the Maxime Bernier who
defended supply management when it suited him? The fact of the
matter is — Sorry, it’s my time to
respond to that question. The fact
of the matter is, there is a clear contrast
in the election. Justin Trudeau’s endless
deficits and tax hikes to pay for it or a
Conservative plan that will leave more
money in your pocket. We will lower taxes
for all Canadians. We’ll bring back popular tax
credits like the kids sports and fitness
tax credit. We’ll boost the
R.E.S.P., we’ll raise the age credit
for seniors and we’ll bring in a Green home
renovation tax credit. That, all the while,
cutting corporate welfare and Canada’s foreign aid
budget to bring that money back home so Canadians
can get ahead. Rosemary: Nine seconds. Well, let’s do
open debate. Off you go. You’re starting
that too. [audience chuckles] Mr. Bernier: Thank
you very much. I’m the Maxime Bernier who
is there for Canadians. I’m the Maxime Bernier who
does not care about having real debates on real issues
that are important for Canadians. Mr. Scheer: You’re the Maxime
Bernier who says things on Twitter that you’ve
never ever said before in your life. Mr. Bernier: You don’t
want to have debates to help every Canadian in
abolishing that cartel in supply management. You don’t want to be
able to cut foreign aid. You don’t want to
cut foreign aid. Rosemary: Let Mr. Scheer
respond, please. Mr. Scheer, then Mr. Singh. Mr. Scheer. Mr. Scheer: That’s
precisely not the case. I’ve said that we will cut
Canada’s foreign aid budget by 25 percent to pay
for the tax cuts that we’re going
to bring in. Mr. Bernier: You can
save $5 billion there in balancing the budget. Mr. Singh: I want to put
in what this election is all about. This election is all about
who is going to fight for you, who’s going to
stand up for you. We’ve seen with Mr.
Trudeau, he says nice words, but he gave
$6 billion in corporate loan write-offs last
year, $14 billion to the richest
corporations. He keeps tax havens open,
he keeps loopholes open. He hasn’t closed them
in four years. We’re in it for people. We’re not in it
for the rich. We’re going to deliver
universal pharmacare for all, we’re going to deliver
dental care programme, we’re going to invest
in housing. We’re going to fight
the climate crisis like we need to win it. That’s what you get
with New Democrats. I ask people to
support New Democrats to hold to account
this government, to form government in
the next election. Rosemary: Mr. Trudeau
can respond. Mr. Trudeau: We have
invested in Canadians. We made a very different choice
than Stephen Harper did, very different choice
than Andrew Scheer is proposing. We’ve lifted 900,000
people out of poverty, we lifted seniors
out of poverty, we’re putting more money in
into the pockets of students. And we’re seeing over a
million jobs created, most of them full time
over the past year. But there is — over
the past four years — but there is so
much more to do. And that is what we have
to stay focused on, because the fight against
climate change, the fight for the future of
our economy matters and that’s the choice
Canadians need to make. Rosemary: Ms. May wants
in, then Mr. Blanchet. Ms. May: We have completely
mischaracterized our response to the
climate emergency as something that somehow
doesn’t help the economy. You have the biggest global
economic opportunity in the history of
humankind in moving off fossil fuels as quickly
as possible. Justin Trudeau: I agree. Ms. May: But you’re keeping
fossil fuels going because your target is exactly
half of what’s required. If this election is
anything, it’s about trust and ethics and we’re
in a climate emergency. We need grownups
in the room to take responsibility. Rosemary: Mr. Blanchet. Mr. Blanchet: Mr. Singh
said he wants to fight for Canadians and
that’s a good point. Who do we want
to fight for? I want to fight for
Québecers and Québecers only. If we agree with the
Canadian government, then let it be. If we don’t agree,
we’re going to fight. This is what Bloc
Quebecois has always done. And I can’t wait —
(speaking French) Rosemary: Mr. Scheer. Mr. Scheer: The fact of
the matter is under Justin Trudeau life
will continue to get more expensive. He’ll continue
to raise taxes. His carbon tax
will go up. He’s afraid to tell you
how much it will go up by. Under the Conservative plan,
we’ll balance the budget, protect core services… Rosemary: Mr. Trudeau, five
seconds to respond, please. Mr. Trudeau: Our price on
pollution helps Canadians more than removing it does. Rosemary: Okay,
that’s it. Thank you. That brings us to the
end of this segment and to the end of
this debate. We want to thank you, of
course, for taking the time, our questioners tonight and
all of you for watching live in person and on
your various screens. Just a reminder, as
Mr. Blanchet hinted at, that French language debate
is later on this week: Thursday, 8:00 p.m. Eastern. On behalf of all my wonderful
moderators and everyone here, have a good night. [applause] ♪ ♪

About the author


  1. Not a fan of this debate format? The National sat down with the four main party leaders individually in their Face to Face series last week. You can watch the videos here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvntPLkd9IMeMFvr93nunecusrsn8ZFFz ^akd

  2. "How would you tackle global warming" – Unless they responded with a plan to regulate and limit the number of children allowed per family, (2 or less ) terminate animal agriculture, ban ALL plastic and stop foreign trade, the answer is NOTHING. You can yap on about fossil fuels, pipelines, carbon tax, electric cars etc till you're blue in the face, but that all means squat. The real issue is TOO MANY PEOPLE and our throwaway society.

  3. I don't want immigration, not because I don't like other nationalities, but because there's literally NO. MORE. ROOM. imma have to go with Bernier.

  4. why is one second Canada is considered best health care in the world. were so loving and accepting. and then election time its.. were so divided, we need "healthcare for all"… This country is so out of whack

  5. Higher Conscious is needed , not speeches or leaders . Something better needs to be representing every persons , humans, animals, plants, based on kindness and caring, not money . Earth was a gift not to be taxed on. Times need to evolve, this style of governing is out dated .

  6. Same old topics. New topics I think are more important:
    1. The Family Land Development Fund
    2. The Citizen Family Growth Program
    3. Investor Land/Real-estate Limitation Law
    4. Family Land Investment Initiative
    5. Mandatory Equal Accountability Marriage Contract Law
    Let's put excuses such as: "mass immigration is the only way to support our population" into the light with better ideas not getting put forth such as supporting larger growth of families already in Canada! Support families with land development opportunities instead of permitting the "free-market" to price-out or put into debt most Canadians!

  7. If Jagmeet wins… 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿⚔️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿⚔️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿⚔️

  8. I'm only 6 minutes in and I already find Andrew unbearable…. instead of going into policy, he goes into attacks… I want to hear what you stand for, not what you think of your opponents…. zzz.

  9. Blanchet seemed like the dad occasionally interjecting between squabbling children all around him. He is the only one that sounded logical and a technocrat.

  10. Now anyone thinks as long as they can get here..its thiers..they have as much rights as canadians as soon as they arrive..taking all jobs..all property's neq MONEY new cars? Where are all the indians? Pakistanis ? Malaysians? And chinese in OUR charity and food banks? And hostels? And warming places? There isnt any? They have houses and new cars and look down on canadians left behind

  11. I feel like they aren't even talking about the peoples questions there talking about how there going to each make the country better and how the other people are bad

  12. Why Canadian care so less about economy? Comparing with our neighbor, why do I get paid less, pay higher tax and pay higher living cost.

  13. Say you had a billion dollar a year corporation and you NEEDED a new ceo. Now look at the credentials of each candidate which one do you hire. I know who I would hire.

  14. Bernier won for two reasons – he's the only one saying anything vastly different than the rest of them and he came out looking like the underdog. Hyperbole and deplatforming don't work anymore, it isn't 2005. JT/Singh/Insane Green Lady are literally socialist public enemy #1 using ridiculous hyperbole and advocating the violation of Bernier's right to speak – NO, THAT WON'T MAKE HIM POPULAR WITH THE FOREVER-CONTRARY YOUTH. You ever find yourself just wishing you had Paul Martin back? Yes, that is how you know that Canadians will lose this election

  15. Everyone on that stage (except Bernier) is fighting for the top spot on the Victim Hierarchy…of the Sanctimonious Puritanically Politically Correct …IF this is the best that Liberals, conservatives, NDP and Greens can offer…Canada and Canadians are SO..SO…screwed.#VotePPC and #MAXIMEizeCanada potential.

  16. As a Canadian, I DESERVE:
    strong and safe borders;
    higher production of fossil fuels;
    strong deals with other countries (ensure that we have a surplus in every deal);
    no involvement in the UN or Peace Accord; (climate change)
    less taxes and getting rid of stringent regulations; (encouraging entrepreneurial interests for economic growth);
    sufficient financial support to assist our Veterans, homeless people, addicts, and hungry children;
    Sufficient hospitals and healthcare for every LEGAL citizen;
    Provide enough mental health institutes to help people who are suffering alone;
    adequate honest law enforcement;
    no government interference in our MSM (radio & social media), or in our schools;
    Reestablishing that any gov't leader can and will be held accountable for every questionable action.

    Remember the government WORKS for us and it is time they found that out again.

    Do any of these leaders support my demands?
    These requests don't sound unreasonable from a law abiding, tax paying, babyboomer citizen. I think it is time for a whole new government system.

    This present system is broken. We need to find a leader with integrity, business acumen, commom sense & a true desire to help each & every citizen of this amazing Country.

    I don't see a single one, sadly. I must vote but there isn't anyone I want my vote to go to. (Libs/NDP are out)

    This is a sad situation for this Canadian First Nation Female Babyboomer. I am however, praying daily for that leader with those qualities will finally step up to the plate. Where are you?

  17. Instead of having these political leaders make statements that realistically don't mean anything past presenting their political philosophy and socially relevant remarks, can we please make a government sector specific to finding the issues that are the most relevant and base a debate around that?

    Perhaps the most relevant issues can be the ones that are the most devastating to human life, and then on from there we can make our way up to corporate growth as the last issue. Variables such as population that is aware and affected should also be noted in the process of evaluating relevance. When will we talk about the means that Canadians use to survive and what those are? The current state of our climate and how we are contributing? And the health and functioning of our systems and institutions we have in place, primarily health care and education.

  18. The leaders in a nutshell:
    Blanchet: I'd like to thank everyone for coming tonight-
    Singh: * quietly waiting for his turn to speak *
    Bernier: SoCiAlIStS!1!1!1!!!1! I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

  19. What a joke of a debate. Listen this is important. Let them speak!!!
    I'm a axe you a question bruv, but I ain't listening to the answer. Lulul you mad?

  20. God I can’t stand Trudeau or Sheer, and these are the favourites somehow. I remember that old South Park episode where it was a choice between a giant douche (Sheer) and a turd sandwich (Trudeau, although he’s more like the people driving a Prius smelling and savouring their farts).

  21. Mr Blanchet : We, the Canada and the province of Québec… English Canadian : hate french canadian. Me (french canadian) : Help me

  22. Funny I only see one Real True Leader yep ANDREW SCHEER 100% For CANADA 100% For CANADIANS👍👍👍👍👍👍👍🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦👍👍

  23. The French debate was much better… if you can understand French I highly recommend it, they had a moderator who actually moderated. CBC should be embarrassed…

  24. Why can't we have the equivalent of Andrew Yang in Canada? Watching this reminds me why most politicians are a bunch of clowns.

  25. Why would anybody pay money for a hoax instead put your top reliable scientists on the job of finding out the truth, not believing a bunch of payed for Quack scientists =I,S,P,C.

  26. I am disappointed in the 'leaders'. What are they leaders in, anyway? I found it stimulating to compare this debate to a Canadian election debate from over fifty years ago. It seems to me the leaders on offer now are lacking in civility, vision, and sincerity. Where is worldliness, familiarity with political philosophy, or the patience required to engage ideas with nuance?

    What takes the place of that earlier hard-won polish and refinement? A clumsy use of moral and political concepts liberally peppered with dull platitudes. Tired talking points shrilly tossed back and forth, canned and botulism inducing. It's clear no one's taking the time and effort to listen carefully.

    Is this all we expect from the best politicians in our country now? These are the people who are supposed to show the way for ordinary people, they should be held to a higher standard of conduct if their hegemony is justifiable at all. They should be helping us to engage in the higher level discussions that are so vital to the well being of citizens and the health of our political institutions which nourish the common good.

    Debate from 1968:

  27. There is a vote they do not tell you about.
    Vote of no confidence. None of these parties will serve Canada.
    The Canadian political system has failed.
    Vote no confidence to rid ourselves of these shills trying to call itself a government. We're better off reformatting the political system.

  28. Bill C 16 The gender pronoun law where if you miss identify someone’s gender they can call the police on you or if you don’t let your son be a homosexual at the age of eight the government will take your child away why don’t we talking about this?

  29. Justin Trudeau fulfilled all of his promises as the PM of Canada. He invested money in our infrastructure and transportation sector. Ottawa has a great transportation system now that can accommodate its local citizens and tourists. Most people in Ottawa were working under his leadership, and by legalizing Marijuana, he primarily tried to implement the "Amsterdam" Model to make Canada a good destination for tourists; and as an engineer that worked under the Federal Government, I've seen first hand how he tried to implement the Paris Climate Agreement by investing in green technology. Justin Trudeau also worked closely with the United Nations to improve the implementation of Human Rights in Canada. This man will be remembered as one of the best prime ministers that ever ruled Canada.

  30. Summary of this debate

    Moderator: "Mr Scheer..oops sorry Mr Singh"

    Mr Singh: " Mr Trudeau I know you keep saying nice words.. "

    Miss May " faldfalhdfa SCIENCE… "

    Mr Blanchet " what will you do for QUEBEC…. "

    Mr Bernier " we will reduce immigration "

    Mr Scheer " we will cut foreign aid budget "

    Mr Trudeau " we have an ambitious and doable plan…fight climate change " then buys pipeline

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *