great case that shows the personal stories behind the cases. there is a battle going on in this between john adams, thomas jefferson, and john marshall, behind the scenes that is the story of this case. it has legal importance but the shows are also personal stories that are engaging and i think eliminating all the time pwe ark eliminating all the time pwe on foreign policy by canadian party leaders. syria's deputy prime minister was in new york today speaking to the u.n. general assembly. he discussed the possibility of new talks in geneva over syri s

and russia's involvement. this is 20 minutes. [ speaking in a foreign language ] >> translator: president of the 70th session of the general assembly, i would like to congratulate you on your election as president of the general assembly at its current session. and wish you success in leading the work of this session. i would also like to thank your predecessor for his presidency of the previous session. ladies and gentlemen, i greet you from this great international edifice that was originally established with all

its agencies in order for peace and security to prevail in the world. i greet you as i come from a country where security has been disrupted and peace has departed. a country that lives a fierce war for more than four years. i greet you from a land baptized by the blood of its people who fight terrorism and defend their fellow citizens against terrorism. while waiting for this international organization to fulfill its promises and implement its resolutions related to combatting terrorism. the resolutions adopted by the security council under chapter 7 are still only ink on paper, mentioned only in press releases and media statements.

while on the ground, the country's funding, sponsoring, and supporting terrorism are still fueling extremism in the region. those countries continue arming, training, and sending terrorists to syria while being indifferent and unconcerned for the implementation of those resolutions. ladies and gentlemen, i ask you, along with the resistant people of syria, until when will the powerful member states remain to intimidate other member states committed to international law while ignoring those states that disregard security council resolutions, what have you done, i ask, to stop these states from executing criminal acts against the syrian people?

why all this silence? you are witnessing these countries as they spread this extremist ideology until it reached europe, where it hit as it is hitting the middle east while the sleeper cells are waking up, bombings and assassinations have returned once again in the west. what is the guilt, i ask, of the innocent people of your countries who started paying the price of supporting terrorism by some of your politicians? you know better than anyone else that terrorism is an ideology that recognizes no boundaries. you know that when this monster comes out it cannot be limited to certain countries.

the terrorism of isis and other al qaeda-affiliated terrorist organizations is killing the innocent, capturing women and launching mortar shells on civilians. this terrorism is cutting drinking water and destroying history and civilization landmarks, including those inkrii inscribed on the world heritage list, which is the heritage of all mankind. the last crimes was the destruction of temples and the brutal killing of archaeologists. why do some of your governments support countries that are used to exporting their crises outside their borders? why do you support them while

knowing they only produce destruction? and do not recognize an active half of the society, being women? how can your countries accept the ideas of sexual jihad, slaughtering, hand cutting, burning, and systematic destruction of monuments and structu structure. ladies and gentlemen, based on the above, i say syria will continue to fight terrorism in word and in deed. and the aryan syrian army is capable of cleansing the country of those terrorists. despite all the sacrifices and high prices paid and that we are still paying, along with the

syrian people from all backgrounds, who've paid in life and all other forms in security, economy, and livelihood, i hope for once you stand for honesty and truth. the duty of the international community is to stop this flow of terrorists coming to syria from 100 countries in order to create a caliphate state, which as you all know will not be limited to syria or iraq. the caliphate leaders have frequently stated that their goal stretches from mecca to all of europe in order to restore the glory of the caliphate according to their own interpretation. if you do not stop those member states that support terrorism, along with the terrorists they

are sending, the fire that has broken out in syria, iraq, and libya will continue to spread beyond. mr. president, syria has not stopped advocating to political dialogue and practicing what we preach based on our vision, which proved to be correct, that the fight against terrorism is a priority to move on in other tracks. syria cannot implement any democratic political measure related to elections or a constitution or the like while terrorism is striking at home and threatening innocent civilians in the country. how can we ask the syrian people to head to the ballot box while they are not safe in the streets and inside their homes while

they are under the missiles and mortar shells launched by terrorist groups supported by well-known countries? nevertheless, we were and still are believers in the political choice, the political dialogue, according to the parameters known to all, namely preservation of nationalsoev sovereignty, the unity of syr syria's territory and people, maintaining the state institutions, improving their performance. the only way to a political solution is through syrian-led national dialogue without any foreign interference. based on this, syria agreed to participate in geneva two, moscow one and two. i would like to announce here

that syria agrees to participate in the four brainstorming committees of experts proposed by the special envoy. the special envoy has repeatedly confirmed the committee's role is mainly to exchange ideas and they will conduct unbinding prelimina preliminary examinations can be be prepared for the launching of geneva three. in the light of this, some imagined that syria's approval of the political track, regardless of its initiative and names, has a connection to what they portray as the weakness of syria's army and people on the

ground. i want to say that syria is strong and continues to fight terrorism and the syrian army and the syrian people are united in the face of terrorism. let no one think, whoever they may be, after all these sacrifices and steadfastness for more than four years they could obtain through politics what they could not win in the field. or that they will achieve at the negotiating table what they've failed to achieve on the ground. a decision of the syrian people lies in the syrian people's hand alone and no one can deny this right. i repeat. the syrian people's decision lies in the syrian people's hand alone and no one can strip the syrian people of this right.

the syrian arab army astonished the world with its power, faith, and persistence. mr. president, the important invitation of hvladimir putin received the attention of the syrian government and its support. terrorism cannot be fought only from the air and all the previous operations to combat it have only led to its spread and outbreak. air strikes are useless unless they are conducted in cooperation with the syrian arab army, the only force in syria that is combatting terrorism. the announcement of the beginning of the russian air strikes in syria, which came upon a request from the syrian government and in coordination

with the government, is in effective participation and in support of the syrian efforts in combatting terrorism. the so-called arab spring was a spring only for israel and its undercover and known allies. israel continues to attack syria while the world is watching. israel is arming the terrorists and treating them in its hospitals and helping them with its intelligence services and supporting them to stand between it and the arab syrian army across the border. while those terrorists weaken, it intervenes directly through air strikes or artillery shelling just as turkey did or is still doing in aleppo and as

saudi arabia and qatar who are doing and who are racing to shed syrian blood through their different instruments. the continued support for terrorists and the escalation of their attacks on citizens in most regions and cities in syria led to an increase in citizens' need for the basic commodities and services in many areas. the inhuman sanctions imposed by the european union and the united states exacerbated the living conditions of syrian civilians. at the same time, my government is cooperating with the united nations and its humanitarian agencies within the framework of response plans agreed upon with the syrian government to meet the basic needs of the citizens,

especially those forced by the terrorist acts, to flee their homes and many of whom have resorted to some neighboring countries. some of those countries accommodated them in camps for training on weapons or what resembles places of detention and isolation. i stress that the syrian state guarantees the safe return and decent life for the citizens who are willing to return. at the same time, syria continues to exert all efforts to deliver aid from international organizations to all syrian citizens without discrimination wherever they are. mr. president, the syrian arab republic confirms its adherence

to the full restoration of syrian heights until the line of june 4th, 1967. it emphasizes its rejection of all actions taken by israel, the occupying power to change its natural, geographical and demographic characteristics. in particular resolutions 497 of 1981 and 465 of 1980. syria also confirms that the palestinian issue is the central issue of the syrian people, which supports the unalien able

rights of the people. mr. president, at the end of 2013, syria accepted the initiative of the president of the russian federation, mr. vladimir putin, and joined the convention of the prohibition of chemical weapons based on the need to establish in the middle east a free zone of nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction. it also wanted to prove to the whole world its commitment to stand against any use of chemical weapons. syria fulfilled its obligations resulting from its succession to the convention and completed its commitments despite the prevailing difficult situation. where it not for the syrian cooperation with the u.n. opcw joint mission, it would not have

been possible to complete the tasks of the mission. mr. president, the syrian arab republic would like to congratulate the islamic republic of iran on its steadfastness and victory in achieving the historic agreement that fulfills the aspirations of the brotherly people of iran and recognizes the right of iran to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and lifts the sanctions imposed against iran as well as lifts the freeze on its assets and leads to opening up the international arena on this brotherly country. this agreement proves that the diligent and serious diplomatic approach is able to overcome all obstacles and result in peaceful and fair solutions for difficult issues.

syria stresses that establishing a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction in the middle east is unachievable without the succession of israel, the only nuclear power in the region to all treaties banning such weapons and to put its nuclear facilities under the supervision of the international atomic energy agency. at the same time, we emphasize the right of all countries to acquire and developx!ol nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. mr. president, syria emphasizes that imposing unethical unilateral coercive economic measures by the united states and the european union contradicts the rules of international law and the principles of free trade. on this basis, we congratulate cuba on reaching an agreement with the united states that lifts the blockade imposed on

it. we also renew our call to lift and stop all unilateral coercive measures imposed on syria and the peoples of other countries such as the democratic people's republic of venezuela and belarus. mr. president, finally i would like to say to all those who claim their keenness for the security and safety of the syrian people the following. if you want to achieve economic and political reforms, you have to honestly implement security council resolutions related to countering terrorism. only thing can we begin the count doup to the end of war in syria. until we get to the final quarter hour and open the doors to implement what is agreed upon in the political dialogue. thank you, mr. president.

[ applause ] >> translator: i thank him for his statement. earlier this week, the ukrainian president also spoke to the u.n. general assembly where he talks about russia's aggression in cry mmia. he also spoke about peacekeeping efforts. this is almost 30 minutes. >> distinguished mr. president, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of ukraine, i sincerely congratulate distinguished -- on the election

as the president of the 70th session of the united nations general assembly. i wish you, mr. president, every success in your activity in this crucial historic moment. our future will largely depend on the outcomes of this session and our collective decision whether we will choose to follow the paths of peace, security, human rights, or we'll plunge into the turmoil of wars and suffering. dear mr. president, the moment of the organization anniversary, i'm proud to speak on behalf of one of the u.n.-founded members, the state which back in 1945 took active participate in a san francisco conference contributed

to the establishment of the organization and laid down the foundation of its activity. the state, which added a lot in san francisco to shape the heart of u.n. charters in purposes and principles. regrettab regrettably, i am also speaking on behalf of u.n. member states, which is now suffering from the brutal violation of the fundamental norms and principle of united nations charter. the statement on ukraine's joining the united nations as one of the founding members, which was delivered at the san francisco conference, emphasized, i quote, ukraine has repeatedly been the subject of bloody invasion by the aggressor who have sought to capture its territory. end of quote. it has been a long time since that landmark event, but today i

have to recall that my country has become the object of the external aggression. this time aggressor is the russian federation, neighboring country, former strategic partner, that legally pledged to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity, independence, and viability of the borders of ukraine. this country used to be a guarantor of ukraine's security whereby security guarantees were provided to my country in exchange for the voluntary reconciliation of the world third nuclear arsenal. moreover, this state is a permanent member of the united nations security council, which

is entrusted with a u.n. charter. in february 2014, russia conducted open and unprovoked aggression against my country having occupied crimea. bluntly and brutally violating the international law, shocking the whole world community. i am deeply grateful to the delegation of the majority of our organization member states that last year supported the resolution of the united nations general assembly entitled territorial integrity of the ukraine, which condemned the russian annexation of crimea.

moreover, moscow started a new military reckless game. this time in ukraine. despite the fact that until now russia refused to officially admit its direct military invasion, today there is no doubt this is an aggressive war against my country, against ukraine. to mislead the world community, russian leadership orders to take military servicemen and identification mark of its military equipment, to abandon its soldiers captured on the battlefield to eliminate traces of its crime on ukrainian soil. i would like to stress it is neither a civil war, not an internal conflict. ukrainian territories occupied

by russia constitute approximately 44,000 square kilometers. millions of ukrainians have found themselves under the occupation. the goal of this war is to force ukrainian people to give up its sovereign choice and build free democratic prosperous european states. all this takes place against the backdrop of the rhetoric about brotherly people, common history, related language, and predestined common future. in fact, we are dealing here with a desire to return to the imperial times with a sphere of influence, a desperate attempt to attain self-affirmation at others' expense. for over the 20 months, russia's aggression against my country has been continued through the

financing of terrorists and mercenaries and supply of arms and military equipment to illegal armed groups. over the last few days, we have had a conciliatory statement from the russian site in which in particular it called for the establishment of the anti-terrorist coalition. cool story, but really hard to believe. [ applause ] how can you urge an anti-terrorist coalition if you inspire terrorism right in front of your own door? how can you talk about the peace of legitimacy if your policy is war via guns?

[ applause ] how can you speak for freedom of a nation if you punish your neighbor for this choice? how can you demand respect for all if you don't have respect for anyone? the gospel of john teach us in the beginning was the word, but what kind of gospel do you bring to the world if all your words are double tongued like that? back to the situation. i have to state that here we are forced to fight proper fully armed troops of the russian federation, heavy weaponry, and military equipment. they are concentrated on the occupied territory in such quantities that armies of the majority of u.n. member states can only dream about. these are in particular the

examples of military equipment, of russian production, which are unlikely according to the well known assumption of the russian president might be purchased in their ordinary army store. during this period, more than 8,000 ukrainians of whom about 6,000 civilians died at the hand of the russian-backed terrorists and occupiers in ukraine. more than 1.5 million residents were forced to flee their home and became internally displaced persons moving to other safer region of ukraine. i would like to take this opportunity to express my attitude to the international community for a considerable effort in providing necessary

assistance to the people in need. at the same time, i call upon the united nations and the other international actors to continue to pay special attention to these very important issues. i would like to draw your attention that is not the first time with the permanent member of the united nations security council is undermining peace and security at both regional and international level. for over 24 years that have passed since questionable procedure, the permanent security council membership of the former soviet union to the russian federation, it is not only the war that russia has unleashed. in fact, in order to preserve influence in neighboring countries, russia has deliberately created around itself a belt of instability.

all of these are protracted conflicts that are supported by or directly relation to russia, but the kremling goes further. what and who is next? dear mr. president, in every democracy country, if someone stole your property, the independent court would restore the justice in order to protect right and punish the offender. however, we must recognize that in the 21st century our organization lacked an effective instrument to bring the aggression -- aggressor country to justice.

70 years ago, the creator of the united nations charter had envisioned the u.n. security council to be run of their tools in response to the breaches of peace and act of aggression. however, they couldn't even imagine that this tool would be needed against the aggressor state that is a permanent member of united nations security council. the united nations security council was consider question related to ukraine. at the outset, russia blocked a draft resolution condemning the fake referendum on the crimea in march 2014. me, personally, i was exactly at the time that they was the

voting on this fake referendum, there was no member of parliament. it was just russian soldiers surrounding the republic of crimea. the second time russia puts its veto on the draft of the resolution to investigate and bring to justice all responsible for a plane ÷ crash. by posting its veto on this draft resolution, russia clearly demonstrated the whole world in defiance in establishing the truth. not just the truth about the perpetrators of this terrorist attack and arms used to shoot down that plane. what is most important, it is the truth about those who organized this crime and from which country the mentioned arms

had been transported. i think everyone in this hall clearly understand clear motives of russia's veto on the tribunal. the establishment of the international peacekeeping operation, which would lead to the establishment of the situation in ukraine and stop the bloodshed, had also been blocked because of the potential threat of russia's veto. its usage as a license to kill is absolutely unacceptable. [ applause ] collective voice of our organization should be absolutely clear. ukraine stands for the limitation of the veto right. veto power should not become an act of grace and pardon for the

crime, which could be used any time and pulled off from the sleeve in order to avoid fair punishment. in this context, i welcome the initiative of my french colleague and friend president hollande supported by the president of mexico on the political declaration to restrain from veto right among p5 members in case of mass atrocities. primary attention should be given to the modernization of the security council, including enlargement of its membership and approving its work. it should reflect the realities of the 21st century by representing the larger quantity of african, asian, and latin american states.

additional nonpermanent seat in the council should be given to the european group. ukraine also consider improvement of the peacekeeping building and architecture as an important element of united nations reform. i am proud of ukraine's international reputation as an active and devoted contributor to the united nations peacekeeping operation. despite the external challenges, we remain a reliable partner of organization in this noble matter. [ applause ] the contribution of ukraine to the maintenance of the international peace and security provide us with the moral grounds to give the same assistance in time of vital importance of this issue for my country. the special peacekeeping mission

under the united nations auspice could become very important under the peacekeeping agreement. we demand the same approach from other signatories that have resorted to the language of blackmail. otherwise there is no alternative to sanction and even their strengthening. as well as there is no alternative to the peaceful resolution of the crisis. full success to the all occupied territory of the russian military forces, military equipment, as well as the mercenaries from the territory of ukraine, restoration full control by ukraine over the state border with russia must be secured. freedom, peace, respect for the sovereignty and territorial

integrity, ukraine doesn't demand more. however, it will not settle for less. [ applause ] dear mr. president, unfortunately not my own free ukrainian zone as one of the areas to fight against terrorist threat, we strongly condemn terrorism in all its form and manifestation. the active of isil, al qaeda, boca haram, al shabaab, and there are others is a global challenge. the only possible way to address it is to unite in common and noncompromised fight against this. international terrorism has proved to be more flexible than the political will of the nation and toward it has taken a new hybrid form. state and non-state actor have

become interlinked. the struggle for what's right is substituted for the ruthless terror. we are convinced that the need for the universal international instrument able to counteract this crime is not only urgent but long overdue. for this reason the conclusion of the preparatory work on the draft of the united nations convention on the prevention and combatting of the terrorism should become one of the top priorities for these 70th session. a special role for the fight against international terrorism should be given to the most r reputable institution. the --

[ applause ] and i strongly believe that one of the most important aspects fighting against terrorism is keeping and sharing the memory of the victims. and in this context i propose that the 70th session of the general assembly consider the establishment of the international day of the commemoration of the memory of the victims of the terrorist act. mr. president, it was my feeling that humiliation, disregard of the people, and the violation of their fundamental rights that's prompted ukrainians to leave their homes for protest in 1913, in 2013, which was the beginning of our revolution of dignity. ukraine has paid and continues to pay an extremely high price for its freedom and the right to

live in a free country, the price of the human lives. this is why the interest of every single individual and the protection of the people's right laid on a foundation of my large-scale reform program launched a year ago. for the first time in 24 years of its independence, ukraine adopted the national human rights strategy. it talks into account the best international practice from the human rights perspective including the european union strategic framework on human rights and democracy. russian aggression exposed the problem of securing the human rights in crimea. leading international human rights organization would directly apply to ukrainian and

crimea. i'm referring specifically to the practice used by the occupation authority in crimea to enlist forcefully into russian citizenship as well as to the persecution arrests and killing of peninsula and complete elimination of the independent media. by the legal means, we will continue to defend the rights of crimea. the indigenous people of ukraine. and i believe that the problem of blatant violation of human rights in crimea deserves a particular consideration within u.n. general assembly. i hope the decision to address this issue will be taken during the current session. i also feel obliged to mention

the names of ukrainians, political prisoners of the kremling illegally detained and sentenced. a respected filmmaker was sentenced for 23 years in prison only for being a ukrainian patriot. i call about the united nations and its member states to launch a worldwide campaign of pressure on russian authorities to release all ukrainian citizens, which they hold hostage. we'll be able to achieve our goal only if our action would be global. most of all, ukraine needs solidarity and assistance, which is really a powerful instrument against aggression and injustice. ukraine will win sure because truth is on our side, but we will do it much faster if we

feel support and solidarity of the whole international community. the war of russia against ukraine has demonstrated the international community is facing another challenge, which requires consolidation of our efforts. t fake news, blatant lies spread to justify their aggression, propaganda of intolerance and violation are phenomena which undermine the principle of freedom of expression and poison human souls and human minds. that's why the task of strengthening the role of information in the maintenance of the peace and security is more important than ever. and i call upon the general assembly to strongly condemn this shameful phenomena and to

discuss the ways to counter them. mr. president, despite the above mentioned external challenges, ukraine is fully committed to the implementation of the sustainable development goals. we are ready to share a joint responsibility for the specific vital problem and priorities of the most vulnerable group of countries, such as small ireland states. ukraine as a member is looking forward to reaching consensus on the universal agreement in the area of climate change as soon as possible. we hope that this result will be achieved by united nations member states in december this year in paris. we have to understand that the price of this issue would be safety of future generations and sustainable development of the mankind. the achievement of the sustainable development goals

will not be successful without overcoming and preventing consequences of the environmental and technological disaster. as a result of the russian aggression, ukraine faces another challenge, the protection of the environment. irresponsible and criminal floating of mines by terrorists lead to the poisoning of drinking water, soil, flora, and fauna in the region. the atmosphere is polluted due to explosion and shelling of sensitive industrial infrastructure. in fact, we can speak about the risk of environmental disaster and i am convinced that the issue of the environment protection under the condition of the conflict needs special attention of the united nations environment assembly. speaking about the technological disaster, i cannot but recall one of the most horrific of them.

next year will mark the 30th anniversary since chernobyl nuclear power station. i would like to request you, mr. president, to hold a special meeting of the general assembly dedicated to the anniversary of the chernobyl disaster. it is said, i quote, ukraine with its vast human strength and material resources, will be able to make a significant contribution to maintaining peace and global security. end of quote. just like it was 70 years ago, i reiterate ukraine unwavering commitment to further undertake maximum effort to save succeeding generations from the scorch of war in short in the

united nations charter. [ applause ] achievement of this noble goal will be the cornerstone of ukraine non-permanent membership in the united nations security council for the period of 2016/2017 if elected. in this capacity, ukraine will remain the reliable and consistent partner guided by the global agenda and resolutely following the spirit and letter of the charter. i am firmly convinced that the organization will pass with the dignity with the complex test the goal of peace and prosperity. let god be with us. their attention. [ applause ] [ speaking foreign language ]

on the next "washington journal," bloomberg news reporter victoria stilwell discusses the september jobs report, the state of the economy, and possible action by the federal reserve. then, "detroit news" washington bureau chief david shepardson on public trust in automakers after reports of deception by volkswagen and fiat. and john logson, founder of george washington university's space policy institute, talks about nasa's announcement this week of the discovery of water on mars. and we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter.

"washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. this weekend we're joined by comcast to learn more about the history and literary life of santa rosa, california. considered part of napa wine country, we'll look at the evolution of the wine industry in sonoma county. >> sonoma county's agricultural history, i guess you could say, began with wine, because the first vines planted here were by general vallejo and at the mission and before general vallejo at the mission at sonoma probably in the late 1820s or early 1830s, which is a very long time ago. they were mission grapes, and nobody in their right mind would make wine out of them now. but you know, with that wine country label that started in the '70s, by the '80s and into

the 1990s, we were beginning to be better and better known. >> when my folks first purchased the ranch in the late '50s, they didn't know it at the time, but it was -- they saw quite a change in the ag industry happening just in our little valley here. it hasn't always been the "wine country." we have a wonderful, storied agriculture history here in the valley and in sonoma county, also. >> we also visit the jack london state historic park, once home to london, author of "the call of the wild" and "white fang." >> we're on jack london's beauty ranch, also known as the ranch of good intentions. this is where jack london lived until his death in 1916. jack london probably would have been writing longhand when people came upon him in his office. he was very productive here.

in fact, two-thirds of his writing was published after he moved here. books like "white fang" was published in 1906, a year after he bought his ranch property. "the valley of the moon" was published while he was living here. "little lady of the big house" was published while he was living here. jack london claimed that he worked two hours a day writing, because he would write 1,000 words a day before breakfast. but i think a lot of his time was spent because he was trying to build the beauty ranch, the ranch of good intentions, so that it could be a model. and that took a lot of his time. >> see all of our programs from santa rosa saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's "book tv," and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on "american history tv" on c-span3. next, a look at events this past month in australia's parliament that included the removal of prime minister tony abbott in place of communications minister malcolm turnbull. this is courtesy of australia's public affairs channel. it's 25 minutes.

♪ >> hello, and welcome to parliament house in cambria. i'm tom connell. you're watching "question town wrap." tragic figure of the lifeless body brought home. the refugee syrian crisis to many australians and also here in parliament house. labor pushing and eventually getting for an extra refugeean take, the government in fact going further than labor suggested with taking on 12,000 extra syrian refugees. >> are there any questions the leader or the opposition? >> thanks, mr. speaker. my question's to the prime minister. there is an unprecedented humanitarian crisis unfolding in syria and surrounding countries. all australians have been shocked by those horrifying images that have emerged, including the tragic photo of the police officer carrying the body of the poor, deceased,

little 3-year-old boy. will the prime minister join with labor in a bipartisan fashion and commit to offering 10,000 extra humanitarian places in australia to refugees displaced by the syrian crisis? >> the prime minister. >> well, i do appreciate this question from the leader of the opposition, and he's asked it in a good spirit and with a good heart, mr. speaker, and there is a good spirit and a good heart in this parliament and in our country. we always want to do the right thing by people in trouble, and we are not going to let people in trouble down now. we never have and we never will. it is the australian way, to look after people when they are in trouble. i agree with the leader of the opposition, that there is an unprecedented crisis. it is, as he said earlier this afternoon, probably the most serious humanitarian crisis that we've seen, the greatest mass

movement of people that we've seen since the end of the second world war and the petition of india. so, it is a very serious crisis. i also agree with the leader of the opposition that all of us were moved to tears by that poignant image of the drowned child on a beach in turkey. and i do agree that this parliament should, as far as is possible, act in a unified, collegial fashion when it comes to responding to crises overseas. this parliament, for all of the difficulties and disagreements we've had, has so far been able to speak pretty much with one voice on national security issues. and when it comes to a humanitarian crisis like this, i'd like us to continue to speak as far as we can with one voice and to respond as far as we can as one united nations. so, i do appreciate the

suggestions that the leader of the opposition has made. as the leader of the opposition knows, the minister for immigration and border protection, mr. dutton, is in europe now. his discussions with the u.n. high commissioner for refugees with the international organization for migration with our friends and partners and allies in europe are now under way. they are now under way. i think it is important that we hear his report, and that is what i hope to do overnight before we start to finalize a response. and i say that any response that we do finalize in the next 24 or 48 hours may, in fact, need to be further revised as this particular crisis unfolds. but it is my intention to listen to the minister to see what

advice he has received from the people on the spot, to weigh the advice that he has received from the experts who are already grappling with this crisis and have been grappling with this crisis for some time now. and i can assure the leader of the opposition that he will be briefed and the parliament will be kept updated. >> the member for sydney. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my question is to the acting prime minister. they went off an additional intake of 12,000 people displaced by the syrian crisis. can the acting prime minister advise how long it's intended that this resettlement should take? is it the intention that the government will resettle those people before june 2016? >> the deputy prime minister. >> mr. speaker, i thank the honorable member for the question -- >> member for sydney, minister for foreign affairs. >> the government's decision to take 12,000 refugees from this

crisis area is a humanitarian gesture that we've been able to take. it's one that we believe reflects the will of the australian people to again do what we can to provide safe haven for those who have little or no hope of ever returning to their country and living with any kind of reasonable lifestyle. now, we have said that we want to bring those people to australia as soon as possible. we will be dispatching a team of australian officials to assist the unhcr to identify people who are suit abable for transfer to australia. we'll be doing that quickly, and we would like to see these people come to australia just as quickly as we can. now, i have to acknowledge that there will be time -- it will take time to undertake this processing. we need to insure that, firstly,

these are people that the unhcr have recognized are, indeed, genuine refugees. we have to do the security checks that are associated with these kinds of arrangements and then make the suitable arrangements to bring them to australia. now, we will commence this process just as quickly as we can. 12,000 is a large intake. so, clearly, it's going to take some time, but our objective is to do it as quickly as possible. >> domestic violence is another issue in which both major parties agree more needs to be done. labor pushing the government to take action after three more tragic deaths. more than 60 have occurred in terms of deaths of women and children already this year. >> the leader of the opposition. >> my question's to the prime minister. in the past week, australians have looked on in horror as three women have been killed at the hands of someone they knew, allegedly, highlighting the need

for urgent and meaningful action on family violence. will the prime minister declare that family violence is a national crisis? and will the prime minister join with me and commit to a family violence package, including front-line legal services to be funded to ensure women suffering from family violence get the right legal support and programs to keep women safe at home and to help identify opportunities to prevent violence by mapping perpetrator activities? >> i call the prime minister. >> well, mr. speaker, i do thank the leader of the opposition for his question and i respect the passion and the commitment that he brings to this cause. frankly, it is an absolute disgrace that we still have these horrific incidents of family violence. and the point i make is that violence is violence, and we do not in any way explain it or minimize it by saying that it is

domestic violence. in fact, if anything, there is more horror to violence when it takes place inside the home than when it takes place in other contexts, because the home should be a refuge and a haven, not a place for persecution and violence. so, i make the fundamental point, mr. speaker, in response to the leader of the opposition -- anyone who strikes a woman is not a real man. anyone who strikes a woman or a child is a coward. and all of us have a very heavy duty to say to our brothers, to our fathers, to our sons, to our mates, that domestic violence is never, ever acceptable, never, ever justifiable. now, i certainly don't rule out another summit. i do not rule that out at all.

i know that this suggestion is made in very good faith by the leader of the opposition. obviously, much is already happening. there was a summit on domestic violence earlier this year. as members of this house would know, there is a panel headed by rosie beatty and ken lay, the former victorian police commissioner advising coag on this matter. there is a $30 million national campaign about to get under way, which the government announced on the fourth of may. on the 17th of may, we committed an additional $14 million toward the 800-respect hotline. there is also $100 million over four years to support the implementation of the second action plan. what i think we need is concerted action and maybe a summit might help, but what we

really want is action. now, i'll have more to say about this in the next few days. essentially, we need to insure that men with the predisposition to violence against members of their families are better monitored, better tracked, so that the instant there is any suggestion of harm, the police can act, because the last thing we want to see is repeated atrocities like those we saw in this country last week. >> in what was to be tony abbott's final question time as prime minister, he was pressingly asked questions by the leader of the opposition about his leadership and how confident he was he would continue. >> the leader of the opposition. >> my question is to the prime minister. the prime minister said earlier today, and i quote, "i'm worried about being the best possible

prime minister." [ laughter ] can the prime minister nominate a single person sitting behind him who thinks he's the best possible prime minister? >> leader of the house? >> mr. speaker, that clearly -- i'm one. i'm one. but mr. speaker -- >> members of my left -- >> -- that question is clearly out of order. it is not about the prime minister's responsibility. it is simply an argument dressed up as a question and should be ruled out of order. >> yes, i agree. i'm ruling the question out of order. the leader of the opposition has the call. >> thanks, mr. speaker. my question's to the prime minister. in the two years since he became prime minister, unemployment is up, debt and deficit's up, growth's down, confidence is certainly down. is this the record of the best possible prime minister? >> the prime minister has the call. >> well, this -- this, mr.

speaker, from the leader of the opposition, who back-stabbed two prime ministered and then lied about it on radio -- >> members on my left -- >> and lied about it on radio. now, now -- >> members on my left will cease in dejecting. the leader of the opposition. >> that's true. >> that's true. >> and mr. speaker, all this leader of the opposition can do is play politics, play cambria games, indulge in all this kind of silliness when, mr. speaker, the people of australia want a government which gets on with the job, and that's exactly what we have done every day since the election. we have been focused on backing hard-working australians. we have been focused on jobs, on growth, on community safety -- >> member from -- >> we have been cutting taxes,

building roads, encouraging free trade. and, mr. speaker, just in the last week -- just in the last we week, while members opposite have been engaging in cambria games, that's all they can do, more games for members opposite, we have been doing what the people of our country expect. we have been making our economy stronger, and there's no better proof of that, no better proof of that than the fact that we uncovered last week that unemployment is down, employment is up, 167,000 -- 167,000 new jobs since this year began, 300,000 more jobs since this government was in office, because what we're doing, mr. speaker, we are working with the creative businesses of this country. we are working with the decent, hard-working people of our

country. we are stopping those dodgy, dishonest, corrupt union officials that that leader of the opposition is constantly protecting. we are stopping them from ripping off the decent workers of our country. we are encouraging the decent businesses of our country to get on with it, with things like the free trade agreement with china that this leader of the opposition is trying to sabotage with a campaign of racist lies. now, i say to the leader of the opposition, stop listening to the cvamu. start listening to the decent people of australia who want this country to go ahead under this government. >> having left the chamber, tony abbott walked back to his office and was visited by malcolm turnbull. the leadership spill was on. ultimately, of course, australia ended up with its fourth prime minister in a little more than two years. malcolm turnbull took over that role, but not before a dramatic night. >> the prime minister has not been capable of providing the

economic leadership our nation needs. he has not been capable of providing the economic confidence that business needs. and we need a different style of leadership. we have lost 30 news polls in a row. it is clear that the people have made up their mind about mr. abbott's leadership. >> thank you for being here tonight. tonight there were two ballots conducted in the liberal party room, one ballot for leader, one ballot for deputy leader. in the leadership, which was contested by malcolm turnbull and tony abbott. malcolm turnbull was successful on 54, tony abbott 44. >> very good. thank you. thank you all very much. truly i'm sorry to keep you up

so late. this has been a very important day in the life of the nation, the government, and of course, of our party. >> yes, this is a tough day. but when you join the game, you accept the rules. >> i, malcolm turnbull do swear that i will well and truly serve the people of australia in the office of prime minister. >> i now invite you to subscribe the oath of office. congratulations, prime minister. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> and so, australia had a new prime minister. and by effect, a new government. what labour wanted to know for the rest of the week in question time, would the policies of the abbott government remain or would there be a new direction under malcolm turnbull? >> my question's to the prime minister. in june 2014, when asked if he supported the government's first budget, the now prime minister said, and i quote, "i support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the budget,

every single one." will the prime minister change the substance of this government, or is it just about its style? >> i call the prime minister. >> i thank the honorable member for his question. the honorable member would be very aware, the leader of the opposition will be very well aware that we operate a cabinet system of government in australia. and every member of the cabinet -- every member of the cabinet supports the cabinet's decisions, and all of the cabinet supported that budget. and when the leader of the opposition invites me to sit here and unilaterally disown one policy or another, he demonstrates that he fails to understand that a cabinet government is a collective method of making decisions. we are a cabinet government.

i will lead a traditional cabinet government, and policies will change in the light of changed conditions. of course they will. they will change all the time. they have to. they have to under any government. but we stand by every decision we make. the cabinet stands by every decision we make. and as we revise them and improve them in the light of experience, we will stand by those, too. so, the honorable member is inviting me to make a unilateral decision, and he should not be surprised to be disappointed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my question is to the prime minister. private members bill on marriage equality moved has been passed by house. it would take half of the parliamentary time to get this voted on. it could be done tomorrow. will the prime minister allow a vote on this bill and allow members of his party a free vote as he's publicly called for previously? >> call the prime minister. >> well, i thank the honorable

member for her question and i respect her interest, very, very deep interest in this issue. the marriage equality or same-sex marriage issue is a very significant one and one on which people of good faith, the best faith, honestly have different opinions, both on the honorable member's side of the house and on our side of the house. the -- historically, this issue has been resolved -- issues of this type have been resolved in parliament by free votes, and the honorable member is correct in referring to that. another way of dealing with this -- another way of dealing with this is by a vote of the people. and the coalition, our government has decided that the resolution of this matter will be determined by a vote of the people, by all the people, via plebiscite to be held after the

next election. now, the honorable member -- the honorable member, i hear the honorable member for isaacs call it a sellout. and again, it underlines -- now, again -- no, it underlines the utter failure of the opposition to approach issues other than in a thoroughly ideological way. the object is to be sure that australians either through their representatives or directly can make an honest, conscientious decision. our government, our party room has decided that the decision will be taken by plebiscite. why is the opposition afraid of the people having a vote? why don't they want all australians having a vote? there is no greater virtue in a free vote here or a plebiscite.

they are each means of resolving the matter. one, i grant you, is more expensive, but nonetheless, nonetheless, it is a very legitimate and democratic way of dealing with it. now, that is what we have resolved. now, let me say this, mr. speaker. at the next election -- at the next election, australians will have a choice. the labor party will say, vote for us and marriage equality will be dealt with by the politicians, by the parliament in a free vote after the election. and we will say, if we are re-elected to government, every single australian will have a say, every single australian. >> the member for kingston. >> we all respect members of parliament. after all, we are all members of parliament, but we are just representatives. we're 150 in number. every single australian will have a vote on the issue after the next election, if we are returned to government. and how can the opposition seriously, credibly say that is

anything other than thoroughly democratic? when did it cease to be democratic to let the people speak? >> the member for gordon has been warned twice. it's his final warning. the leader of the opposition has the call. >> thanks, mr. speaker. my question's to the prime minister. in 2010, the current prime minister said, and i quote, "i think people know what i stand for. you know, they know that i have strong convictions, committed principles, and i'm prepared to stand up for them." given that just in the last 24 hours, the prime minister has sold out on climate change, marriage equality, renewable energy and the darling, what other government policy is the prime minister willing to sell out to appease his personal ambition? >> the leader of the house will cease in dejecting.

the leader -- leader of the house will cease in dejecting. the prime minister has the call. >> leader of the opposition, i must say. but mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, again, again, the leader of the opposition consistently confuses the means and processes with the objective. i support marriage equality. many of my colleagues do not. many of the leader of the opposition's colleagues do not. the question of how -- that's -- that's a substandard issue. the question of how to resolve the matter, whether it is a free vote or a plebiscite, is a question of process. each approach has its advantages. one, i suppose, is faster and costs less. the other one keeps every australian safe and it has a cost. democracy has a price. keeping everybody on an

important issue is surely a very legitimate and reasonable approach. and that -- the leader of the opposition objects to that. he talks about climate change. mr. speaker, the objective in climate policy is to cut your emissions, is to cut your emissions. there are many -- >> member from kingston is warned. >> the emissions trading scheme, regulation, emissions reduction fund, a carb tax and many, many others, many other techniques can achieve the same end. and so, the judgment for policymakers is what is the best model, what is the best approach in the circumstances of the time. we have chosen as a government, thanks to the hard work of the environment minister, to go, to use an emissions reduction fund. he has demonstrated that it is cutting emissions at a very low cost. and this so upsets the opposition that they are now

forgetting that climate policy is about cutting emissions and thinking that the goal is an emissions trading scheme. of course, i've supported an emissions trading scheme in the past. so did my party. so did john howard. it is a technique. but, and we have changed our policy. the critical question is what is our goal? our goal is cutting emissions. we are doing that. we are doing that in a manner that we believe is least cost. and so far, the work of the minister for the environment is demonstrating that that judgment is correct. >> that's all in this dramatic emission of "question time wrap outsiwrap ." i'm tom connell. thanks for watching. the c-span networks feature weekends full of politics,

nonfiction books and american history. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span, with nasa's announcement of liquid water on mars, the science, space and technology committee talked to the experts about the announcement and the possibility of life in space. and sunday evening at 6:30, policymakers, industry innovators, business leaders and media personalities discuss the issues driving the national conversation at the washington ideas forum. speakers include former massachusetts governor mitt romney and senior adviser to president obama valerie jarrett. on c-span2's book tv saturday night at 10:00 eastern on "after words," martha kumar discusses her new book on presidential transitions. she's interviewed by former clinton administration former white house chief of staff matt mclarty. and saturday afternoon on "in depth," we're live with talk show host thom hartmann, who author aid "rebooting the american dream" and "threshold." join our three-hour conversation as we take your phone calls,

texts and e-mails and tweets for thom hartmann. on american history tv on c-span3 saturday afternoon at 2:00. in his book "in the dead shall rise," author steve onie explores the events of the 1936 murder of 13-year-old mary fagan in marietta, georgia, and the arrest and lynching of jewish factory owner leo frank. and sunday afternoon at 4:00 on "real america," the federal energy administration documentary on the supply and demand of fossil fuels the u.s. and a look at alternative energy sources. get our complete weekend schedule at c-span.org. next, a debate on canada's foreign policy between party leaders stephen harper, thomas mulcair and justin trudeau. topics include canada/u.s. relations, the keystone xl pipeline and the current syrian refugee crisis. you'll hear all speakers speak in french and english, which is

customary in canada. this is just under two hours. you don't know which of your factories will be demolished. >> russia's political leaders are not just rulers of their nation, they're country's owners. >> you don't know which of your arguments will be totally destroyed. >> i'm not prepared to sacrifice the african continent for some free-market ideology. >> and then you've got to come back and you're now rattled, you're shaken up. >> let's save the bleeding heart for somebody else. it's time to change. >> and you don't know what the hell to say, but you've got to say something. >> i believe the 21st century will belong to china, because most centuries have belonged to china. >> blaming barack obama for the state that the world is in right now is like blaming a caribbean island for a hurricane. >> the lesson of north korea has been, if you are a third-rate,

disfunctional country that manages to acquire a couple of crude nuclear devices, you remain a third-world, dysfunctional country with a couple of crude nuclear devices. >> if you want to engage in humanitarian interventions, do it with your own sons and daughters, not mine. [ speaking french ] >> and welcome to the munk debate on canada's foreign policy. [ speaking french ] and chair of the munk debates. it's my privilege to have the opportunity to host tonight's historic proceedings. the first ever federal election debate devoted exclusively to foreign policy issues. [ speaking french ] first, the national television audience tuning in to this debate in french and english

nationwide on cpac and chch television and across north america on sirius xm and c-span. also, a warm hello to our online audience watching this debate right now in french and english on munkdebates.com and on the websites of our official media partners, facebook canada and the "globe" and "mail." and hello to you, the over 3,000 members of the munk debates who fill roy munson hall to capacity for this -- [ speaking foreign language ] >> translator: let's start. >> and our debates under way.

>> translator: ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome mr. tom mulcair, leader of the new democratic party of canada. [ speaking french ] >> mr. thomas mulcair. >> next up is mr. stephen harper, the leader of the conservative party of canada. [ applause ] >> translator: welcome, mr. harper, for the conservative party of canada. and finally, let me welcome mr. justin trudeau, leader of the liberal party of canada.

>> well, gentlemen, we are glad to finally have the three of you here on stage. you've all agreed to the rules of this debate in advance, and i want to quote as a friendly reminder the rule that leaders will respect each other's right to speak in order to make points uninterrupted. so, let's get started. right now, the world is witnessing the largest humanitarian crisis since the second world war, as the conflict in syria and northern iraq rages on. mr. mulcair, you have pledged as prime minister to pull canada's military forces out of the international coalition fighting isis. question for you is, if the threat the islamic state represents doesn't justify a military response, when would an ndp government use military force? >> translator: you have 90 seconds to respond. let's go. >> canada does have a role to play in fighting the horror that

is isis. we can help stop the flow of arms, help stop the flow of funds and the flow of foreign fighters. there are more than 60 countries involved in the coalition. canada would remain a member with us, but only 12 are involved in the combat mission. >> translator: for me, it's important to remember that here in this evening, we are in the same room where we had jack leighton, and i will continue jack's work, and i will take the same quebecua and canadian values, values of solidarity, of sustainable economic development. we want to project into the world scene. we don't want a canada that pollutes and goes to war. it's a canada that respects values. >> -- that a prime minister has to get right. this election is about change,

and there is no area where canadians want change more than in that of our foreign affairs. prime minister has to maintain a good relation with the u.s. mr. harper's lost the respect of the white house. we have to make sure that we have a place on the world stage. we missed our turn on the security council. we have to take care of the defining issue of the age, which is climate change. we are the only country to have withdrawn from the quoto protocol. i'll defend your values, canadian values, on the world stage. where mr. harper's failed, we'll get it done. >> let's bring mr. harper into the debate for a seven-minute one-on-one with mr. mulcair for the topic of intervention. >> translator: mr. harper, what's your opinion on the subject? >> translator: our response to this crisis in the region is a generous and balanced response. our response to the refugees, our humanitarian aid -- >> we have a balanced approach.

we're giving a generous but responsible refugee policy. we're bringing additional humanitarian aid to the region, and we're also, obviously, participating in the international military effort against isis. why are we doing that? not simply because isis threatens to slaughter, literally, hundreds of thousands, create millions of additional refugees, but this is an organization that it wants to use parts of syria and iraq as an international base for terrorist operations, not just in the region, but also against this country. that's why we're there with our allies and that's why there is broad international support for this intervention that is necessary, not just for the region, but to protect our own security interests. >> well, it's important to remember that this is not a nato mission. this is not a united nations mission. and to get back to your initial question, of course when it was a question of going into libya under the united nations' duty to protect, the ndp voted for those air strikes because it was a u.n. mission. when that started to morph into

something completely different, we withdrew our support. so, the question answer to you is we understand that there will be times where under the nato charter or under our obligations at the u.n. to use force, and we won't shy away from that. but the answer here is the only thing we can do -- now, mr. harper always takes the same approach. when your only tool is a hammer, all problems resemble nails, but this is a complex situation. it's one that has deep roots in many years of divisive conflict in the region, and there is one area where canada is completely failing, and that is in dealing with the refugee crisis. my own family, the irish side of it at the least, came over during the potato famines of the 1840s. and you know what? in quebec city, people went down to the docks, even though a lot of them were getting sick, and took in the most miserable in the world. that's canada. that's who we are. katheri katherine's family, the screws who were expelled from spain, they were taken in in the muslim countries that are today turkey,

it was then the ottoman empire. that's the opening world that we can always aspire to. 2 million refugees living in our nato ally turkey. we're not doing enough to help. there are requests from the united nations to take in 10,000 by christmas. mr. harper is not even going to get near that number. they want 46,000 between now and 2019. the ndp government will get it done. >> if i could just maybe correct a couple facts here. first of all, none of our nato allies, not all of them are involved in the coalition, but none are opposed to it. they are all supportive of our mission against the islamic state. the united nations is not opposed. in fact, this intervention is happening at invitation of the government of iraq under international law. in terms of refugees, canada's response has been generous and responsible. we've admitted so far 15% of all the world refugees from the region. in terms of our response to this recent crisis, even before it was in the headlines, i announced our intention to accept additional refugees. i have since announced a number of changes to our system to

expedite that number, and we're doing so while at the same time making sure that we choose the refugees, that we choose those who are genuine refugees, the most vulnerable people, and also maintain all standards of security and other screening. this is a generous and responsible approach that canada is taking. >> gentlemen, i want to step in to refocus the discussion. we'll have ample opportunity to talk about the refugee crisis later in the debate. mr. mulcair, follow up more precisely on when the government would intervene and why. what are the criteria that you're looking for? >> sure. it's happened because we do talk, believe it or not. the prime minister consulted me when france was looking for heavy airlift capacity in a crisis in maui. i agreed spontaneously. that's the kind of thing that canada could do. i gave you the libyan example. but with regard to isis, there are things that we can be doing. canada is one of the only countries in the world, and it is the only nato country not to have signed the arms trade treaty. now, we find ourselves in some particularly curious company

here with countries like saudi arabia, iran, north korea, belarus. and those are not the types of countries we normally identify with, but they're countries like canada that have refused to sign that treaty. that treaty, when enforced, can help stop the flow of arms to isis. we can get a lot more serious as the united nations security council has asked in successive resolutions 2170 and 2129, both speak specifically to stopping the flow of money. we can be involved in that. and on the flow of foreign fighters, never forget that in mr. harper's failed bill c-51, which was backed by mr. trudeau's liberals, there was nothing on deradicalization here at home. the ndp has a clear plan to bring in 2,500 more police officers across the country. we know that we have to work with faith groups of all descriptions. but you know, mr. harper always has one group in mind, and he tends to finger-point and objectify one particular group. he doesn't talk about houses of worship. he specifically refers to

mosques. and muslims across canada know how to interpret that for exactly what it is. >> i want to bring the prime minister in again. >> look, let's be clear that the government of canada is pursuing all levels of response of this particular problem, not just refugees and humanitarian aid that i mentioned earlier. we are pursuing antiradicalization efforts in canada in terms of financing of the terrorist organizations. we're involved with a range of coalition partners, the world bank, the g-20, working on all of those issues, but none of that explains why the other parties think we should also not take direct military action with our key allies against the islamic state. this is a group that not only left to its own devices would slaughter literally millions of people in its wake but has an intention, a stated intention to attack, to launch terrorist attacks around the world, including against this country. and as it indicated, it has the capacity to engineer and inspire such attacks. we see that all around the world. there is no -- we have a clear

reason for being there, supported widely by our allies in the international community. why we would abandon this mission is a question that's begging. we have to help humanitarian support, stop the flow of fighter and funds and fight isis in the region. we keep pressure so they can't use it as a base of terrorist operations. >> translator: mr. trudeau, off to you. >> translator: thank you very much. first of all, there is the engagement in the middle east, and we' know it's going to be long-term. >> -- northern iraq and syria. and we have is three different perspectives on what we need to do. mr. mulcair has said he doesn't think we should be in this fight at all. mr. harper hasn't seen a fight in the middle east that he hasn't wanted to send canadian troops into, starting with 2003 and george w. bush's iraq war. the liberal party, as we have in the past, know that canada has an important role to play on the

world stage and should be a strong partner in the coalition, but we disagree with mr. harper in terms of how to do it, as in dropping bombs. we think as we've done in afghanistan for many years and other places arged the globe, we should be training up the local forces so they can defeat ice on the ground, because we know that sending in western troops isn't always the best possible outcome and indeed often makes things worse. we have to ensure we're equ equipping local people to bring the fight to isis and canada has a strong and real capacity to do that. and that actually ties to something that president obama was talking about today, which is a call to once again re-engage and revitalize united nations peacekeeping. the fact that canada has nothing to contribute to that conversation today is disputing, because this is something that a canadian prime minister started. and right now there is a need to

revitalize and refocus and support peacekeeping operations across the country, around the world. >> i'd like to bring mr. mulcair back in. >> well, as the sergeant's tragic death on the front lines reminded us, this is not just a training mission. canadian special forces have been painting for targets for our air strikes. we know that. they've been involved in live fire on the front line. we know that. the ndp's taken a clear position on this since day one. we have said that we should not be involved in the combat mission. we have said that there are several things that canada can and should be doing. there are more than 60 countries involved in this effort. only 12 of them are involved in the combat mission, and that's why we think that we should be stopping the flow of arms, stopping the flow of funds, stopping the flow of foreign fighters. but no, we don't think that our proper place is in that combat mission. >> let's be clear, canada's still involved in the peacekeepi peacekeeping, and there is like the sinai, we still contribute

peacekeepers around the world. obviously, there is not a peacekeeping mission to be had right now in iraq and syria. and we're not just involved in an aerial campaign, as has rightly been observed. we're also involved, in fact, in training troops. in northern iraq, we are working with peshmerga forces who have been an effective fighting force protecting themselves and other minorities against the onslaught of isis. i visited them there. we're extremely proud of the work that they are doing. but the reason we're also involved in the aerial campaign is through much of iraq and syria, there is, in fact, no ground resistance to isis. and the only way to keep them back, to hold them back, keep them in their positions and keep them from simply being able to sit back and plan attacks against us is to keep the military pressure on them. that's why president obama and our other allies are involved in an aerial campaign. >> the challenge canada faces in any time we engage the world, is to support our national interests in a constructive and positive way. now, there's no question that it's absolutely in our national

interests to help defeat isis, to work with international partners on that. but how canada can best help is by doing more of the kind of training of infantry troops on the ground that we developed tremendous capacities to do in afghanistan and in other places. that is something that canada has an advantage and an ability to do on top of the necessary humanitarian and much more refugee support that i know we'll talk about later. but that kind of engagement around the world, where canada is focused on the things that we can do differently and often better than anyone else is what we have to get back to. that's why this opportunity to re-engage with the 128,000 peacekeepers active around the world right now in 39 different countries -- or locations -- is something that, quite frankly, that the president of the u.s., our closest friend and neighbor, is asking for countries to get involved in something that was at its origin a canadian initiative and that we not be

engaged in a constructive way on saying, yes, let's renew peacekeeping and be part of it for a more stable world for all. >> mr. trudeau, since mr. mulcair had the first word, we'll give him the last in this session. >> president putin's statements today are cause for concern for all of us. this is a caldron. this is also a time for canadian values to be projected into that situation. our strong desire for peace -- mr. harper just talked about peacekeeping. the last time the liberals were in power, we went from number one in peacekeeping in the world to number 32, and now we're at number 68 under mr. harper. we know canadians want us to do a lot better, and we will. >> gentlemen, i thank you for a civil and substantive debate on this first topic and now we'll move on to our second item to discuss tonight, the refugee crisis. needless to say, canadians have been deeply moved during this election by the crisis, the devastating toll that it's having on women, children and famili families. mr. harper, the question's to

you. can you explain to canadians how your latest change in policy reflects an adequate response, given the enormous of this crisis? >> translator: let's proceed. you have 90 seconds to respond. >> translator: thank you very much. i explained already that we have a very generous and balanced way to deal with refugees, and we are continuing with our military mission against, so to speak, the islamic state. >> in the headlines, we denounced our intention to accept an additional 10,000 refugees. that's on top of additional numbers that were already coming in, on top of the fact that we have already resettled 15% of refugees from the region in the international community. we have since announced our intention, and in fact, i've implemented changes to expedite the process so we can move those additional numbers in much more quickly, and we've been doing so in a way that makes sure we pick the most -- representatives of the most vulnerable groups,

genuine refugees, and we maintain all standards of security screening. this is a responsible approach. it's credential in line with what most other countries are now doing. in addition to that, we've also announced during this campaign the establishment of additional funds for humanitarian assistance. canada is one of the largest providers in absolute dollars of humanitarian assistance in the region, $800 million directly to the region, over $1 billion to the wider region. we've announced an additional fund. i know canadians have responded with a desire to respond generously, and we encourage canadians to contribute to that fund. we will match contributions. let us remember, regardless of what the response is to refugees, the vast number of people will remain in the region and will continue to need our help for the foreseeable future. >> translator: mr. trudeau, please get involved in the discussion. >> translator: first of all, one must understand the degree of the crisis in the planet. there are 60 million displaced

people, refugees. and as a country, we must, having always welcomed people like that and having seen that our economy is benefited from it, we must welcome them and we must know that in the next decades, there will be more refugees because of climate changes and other issues, and we must take a spot of leadership and take multilateralism and show how all of the planet can react to the issue of refugees. for example, we have a commitment at three levels. first of all, here in canada, we must welcome these people. we propose 245,000 syrians six months ago and we continue to say that that should be done at the beginning. for years already, i have seen mr. harper saying in the house

of commons saying, yes, we're going to do something, and we don't. second, we must work with the international community, with the countries around lebanon, iraq, to help the refugees and also to help them in europe add to the wave of immigrants. and we must also work with the countries of origin. we must stop the war. >> translator: during the last decade, canada received 250,000 refugees, the biggest settlement program on the planet. according to the numbers, there are 15 million displaced people in the world, maybe even more in the greater region. of course, that is the reason for which we must have a

balanced way of accepting the refugees. there are many that remain there, and there is also military action against the islamic state that are determined to create more refugees and the murder of millions of people, literally. >> translator: people are unanimous in the country, we must do more. canada always benefited from being an open country and from being people in a crisis situation, be it the hungarians who were fleeing behind the sovietic situation, be those fleeing to come to canada. we welcomed tens of thousands of people, and mr. harper wants to talk about security. our security was always our concern, even in situations that were extreme and even with less

resources than what we have now. so, this idea that we must do more -- people are saying that the prime minister, the premiers are saying it all over the country, and this government does not want to do more. and really, when we look like people that say that we can accept 50,000 before christmas, we must understand that canada must be again the country we were before. we already announced -- >> translator: it started already. >> the reality is the canadians expect us to react in a way that is generous and also responsible. we haven't opened the flood gates. some european countries just started letting everybody in, and now they're trying to reverse those policies. i've asked our officials, what can we do to speed up the process? what kind of numbers can we get in and how quickly while maintaining our security and not

literally spending tens of millions of additional dollars. and these are the numbers we've arrived at. we're not chasing headlines. we've arrived at it through consulting officials and through proceeding on a program that is by all standards generous. you know, we've said 10,000 more. the united states has said 10,000 more. it's a country ten times larger than us. i think we're responding in a way that is responsible and also generous. and that's the responsibility of the government of canada, not to chase headlines. it's to make sure we act in a way that we can actually fulfill. >> mr. harper, we stand here tonight just a few blocks from ireland park. ireland park was where in 1847, 38,000 irish men, women and children fleeing the famine arrived on the shore of toronto. there were 20,000 citizens of toronto at that time, and they accepted 38,000 refugees who proceeded to build and contribute to this country, to this city, and to who we are

today. canada has always done more. it's not about politics, it's about being the country that we have always been. >> translator: and it is at that level that not only you are failing as canadians, but also the entire world is looking at us, to look at us, and what is going on with canada? you have already -- you were a country that were coming people and diversity that you were bringing, people that want to build a better future for their communities and for their children. we are giving them that opportunity. and now mr. harper is saying security will have to do the minimal necessary. no, it is not that, because mr. harper, who is talking about resisting tyrants and dictators. and you know what we do with tyrants and dictators.

the families that are escaping the local violence, what do they do? what will they do when -- what you are doing is that you are removing their health benefit, mr. harper. this is what you are doing. [ applause ] >> translator: we have admitted 23,000 people -- >> we've had a commitment to an additional 10,000, and on top of that during this campaign, an additional 10,000 that we sped up the process on. we're not living in a different era here. we're living in an era where people are fleeing a terrorist war zone, and we obviously must have security screening. in terms of the policy on support for refugees. let's be very clear, we have health support for our refugees and immigrants. where we stop those benefits claims that have been turned down because they're bogus. >> that's not true, mr. harper. you know that's not true. >> it's a responsible thing to do.

>> translator: the time has passed. >> it's important for canadians to remember when we've gotten it wrong in the past and when we have to learn from our experiences. in vancouver, a lot of those people were killed. they weren't allowed in canada. more recently, a boat arrived in bc. one of our ministers said they were terrorists. a great number of them have been admitted as legitimate refugees. [ speaking french ]

[ speaking french ] [ speaking french ] [ speaking french ] >> we've already announced more, already are doing more. but this isn't just a game of trying to up the numbers. we're trying to do things responsibly. i've visited refugee camps in

syria, in northern iraq. i've visited with families we have accepted from these regions. i have met with leaders from those communities, not just in canada, but in the region itself. and i can certainly tell you, from my visits to the refugee camps in jordan and debriefings there, we can't pretend there are no security risks. it's important that we do screening. those countries in the world that responded to these headlines as these others would have by just opening the doors and doing no checking have rapidly regretted that, and are now trying to put in place the very kind of system that canada has been pursuing all along. it's a generous response, it's a responsible response. it is not based on the headlines. it is based on the right thing to do. [ applause ] [ speaking french ]

[ speaking french ] [ speaking french ]

[ speaking french ] >> i want to bring mr. mulcair back in for our remaining time. >> translator: it is extremely difficult to hear a prime minister of a country who says that he's one of the first to help refugees, and say that the summary is that all the others want titles on the newspapers.

>> try being to help most needy of the earth, help people fleeing a tragedy on a scale not seen since the second world war, anybody fighting to get canada to take in more of them is somehow chasing headlines. i find that disrespectful. it's disrespectful to canadians and to canadian values. >> translator: thank you, mr. mulcair. >> the next topic is the global terrorist threat. it's taken on more urgency with the large scale recruitment of foreign fighters. canada's parliament passed new antiterrorist legislation. it's been attacked as undermining civil liberties. >> translator: explain to us, mr. trudeau. >> why did you vote for bill c-351? >> canadians expect us to do two things: protect our security and defend our rights and freedoms. that's what the liberal party stood for. that's what we did successfully in the years following the 9/11 attacks.

we brought forward responsible legislation. we did get that balance right. canadians expect their government to do that in a way that doesn't foment fears or play up divisions. mr. mulcair has had three different positions on c-51. his initial position was to change it. then a few weeks later it was to repeal parts of it. now it's to scrap it entirely. he says we don't need to do anything more to protect our security than we have right now, because he has not put any options forward. mr. harper doesn't think we need to do anything more to protect our rights and freedom, where is in a free society we know that we have to ensure that any time we give greater powers to our police or investigative or national security services, we are matching that with an increase of our protections.

that's why the liberal party pushed for strong amendments during the committee process on c-51. and that's why we're committed to bringing in oversight by parliamentarians and sunset and review clauses that are going to meet what canadians ask for, which is defend our rights and protect our safety. >> translator: mr. mulcair, please get involved with the conversation with mr. trudeau. >> the ndp took a very strong, principled stand against c-51. we looked at it and we knew it was wrong. just like we thought it was wrong when mr. trudeau put hundreds of people in jail without any trial or accusation. that's the courage of your convictions. when we started our fight against c-51, the vast majority of canadians were in favor of it. mr. harper had done an excellent

selling job. by the time it finished in committee, canadians understood it was more to do with the politics of division than with security. and every single group who came and testified, every expert who came in there, and four former prime ministers all said it was wrong, the ndp stood up against c-51. [ applause ] >> throughout this campaign both of these gentlemen have at various points attacked my father. let me say very clearly, i am incredibly proud to be prime minister trudeau's son and to have been raised with those values. when we talk about the legacy my father left behind, first and foremost is the charter of rights and freedoms which

defines canada as a country which stands up for individual rights, even against governments who want to take that away, multiculturalism that makes canada strong not in spite of but because of its diversity, and bilingualism, which means saying the same thing in french, mr. mulcair, as you say in english. [ applause ] >> one last thing on my father, if you please. it's quite emotional for me right now to be able to talk about him, because it was 15 years ago tonight that he passed away, on september 28th, 2000. and i know that he wouldn't want us to be fighting the battles of the past. he would want us squarely focused on the future and how we're going to fight for canada's needs. that's what we're doing tonight. >> what we're talking about is canadian values. the values that guide us when we

make our choices. i'm sorry to hear that mr. trudeau thinks we're talking about his father in a negative way. i'm talking about historical fact, that the only party that stood up for canadians' rights and freedoms was the ndp. the only party that stood on principle against bill c-51 was ndp. he said he was against it but afraid of mr. harper making political -- >> that's not -- >> you have to have the courage of your convictions. >> you said we could speak individually. >> go ahead. >> on mr. trudeau's other complaint, which he throws out there very lightly at every occasion, there was a check of mr. trudeau's complaint, where he says i've said one thing in french and one thing in english,