is watchingnobody and time to put some hate, put it in the constitution, proposition 8 sodomy ♪ that was not right that is a lie. now you risk it all with our clothes, not our hair the bible says a lot of things, you know? jesus christ does in the bible say that these people are an abomination? >> an abomination? ♪ >> what would you rather have people learn about how the

courts function? would you rather than listen to the proposition 8 musical, at a reenactments, or the real thing? i submit to you that i might as well conclude by saying since it is february 18, 2001, that is the way things are in obama- nation. would you rather have to learn about these chiles and proceedings by reenactments or by the real thing? i submit that the real thing as far more informative and better for the public and far better to teach people how our institutions work and the kind of reenactments which we have in the proposition 8 case, the judge judys of the world. the real thing is better than the re-enactment. so, thank you very much.

>> we are about to take you live to canada where the house of commons voting on whether to oust prime minister stephen harper. the liberal party rule to that the conservative government acted in contempt by failing to disclose the full cost of a number of government programs in the budget. the house is scheduled to vote on the no-confidence motion, that vote now set for 2:00 p.m. eastern. if it passes, at a vote will be held. we'll take you live now to the canadian broadcasting coverage. >> mr. harper, whatever his -- one of his fundamental feelings is that he never understood he was in a minority parliament. he has never been able to reach out to work with other parties when things got stuff. i feel that for us, we will be

offering very clear choices to voters in terms of focusing on democratic issues, affordability, and all the people that have done left behind in this budget and former budgets as well. i'm looking forward to it. i think the ndp will work well. people know he is straight up. >> let me ask you about british columbia. conservatives will target that like never before. are you worried about that? >> absolutely not. we are well-positioned and we have some fantastic candidates. we will have tight races, but it will be a race between the conservatives and the ndp. the liberals are not much of a factor. in the writings, the ndp came first or second. there were some firms stalwarts that are not running, and they may have a sense that they take it for granted that they will win those races. a former deputy premier who is

running in prince george peace river, she's doing really well. i think you'll see the ndp really gain momentum and strength. >> thank you for stopping by on the campaign trail. >> we are hearing he may start in another seat, linden duncan's c, formerly held by the conservative. linda duncan was just speaking, clearly a targeted right thing, the only non-conservative riding in alberta and by the ndp -- held by the ndp. they do not win that much, but they hold those seats, and that will be a target that we will be heading out there. let me bring in jamie all along with martin patrick, scott reed,

and ian. jamie, you just heard from libby davies. she is saying that the ndp were ready to reach across the aisle and work with the prime minister. we had the finance minister telling me that that is not the way budgets work, we do not do take it or leave it, there is only a preconsultation. it is all about who is willing to work with the government and what is your response to that? >> i do not think we should have the tail wagging the dog appeared at the end of the day, that is what the party with the most seats gets to do, they get to present a budget if the house does not like the budget, that is what we will have today and canadians will decide. >> jamie, to be fair, even in the minority parliament, it is fair to say that there usually

is days of debate after a budget days after it is presented, and there usually is time for negotiation on that, not really a take-it-or-leave-it, normally, is it, jamie? >> i think with the economic situation we are in today, the government had to put together a balanced plan, and low-cost plan for jobs and growth, as they call it. it's not like going to the manager of a buffet where you can take a little bit here and there, and the next thing you have so much on your plate you cannot take any more from the buffet. also i will say his former boss has worked on budgets for a long time, and what you saw this time was you saw the government go part way towards -- >> that is not the budget that -- that is not the budget they designed. anybody looking at this budget would have seen some clear priorities put forward by mr. leighton, and then those

priorities not followed up by mr. harper. they would have reached across the aisle and said can we make an amendment. it was a big fake, that is exactly what this was. they want this election -- that is why they have not said the word "unnecessary election." >> like i said, it is a campaign document. this was a dead-on-arrival budget, basically a set of talking points. all along the lines of what was just being said about the take- it-or-leave-it budget, stephen harper likes his own little book. that is the image that comes across and i think that will hurt in this election. >> given that reality -- >> jamie, then scott real quick.

>> a very fast reality check. this is not the first or second budget but the sixth budget for mr. flaherty and prime minister harper. is the longest serving finance minister and he is producing an economy built on the hard work of governments that have gone before. he has helped steer an economy that is a good performing economy in the world. why are we not giving this guy some credit? why do we not think -- why do we think that everything he writes or prepares to some cynical thing that came out of the back room? >> because it is a minority -- >> scott? >> whatever, ok? let's get realistic. we have been arguing for months that there will be an election, and the reason is because we believe stephen harper wanted one. that is what we saw when the budget came down. arguing about who killed the budget is about as relevant as arguing about who shot j.r.

talking about the small things in the budget like tax cuts -- they will not talk about the big things. that is what the liberals are saying, do not listen to what they say, look at what they spend on. they spend on other priorities. the liberals can win that argument, they are where public opinion is. if they can i get through, then harper will have a better time. there is going to be a real wrassle on budget management, and arguably you can look at the measures in terms of the smallest. >> this is a government that did not want to give over certain information for the sake of not giving it over. they do not realize they are in a minority government. that is the feeling i get whenever i see this. >> let me give you the last word

before we -- >> in the midst of all this, i think it is clear right now that the conservatives are happy about this. they are not bemoaning going to the polls. they are at the microphone, in a very strong position relative to the other party going into this campaign. there was an opportunity, apparently, to appease jack layton and get his support. by the way, that support, according to mr. layton, would be about $400 million, which is what this election will cost. the government would have broken even by not having an election. the other thing is, the way all this is unfolding, it did not matter whether jack layton liked the budget or not if they are going to vote the budget down in contempt, they will never get to a vote on the budget. all that is kind of academic as

we head toward the wire. >> we have to take a short break, but we will have some pollsters standing by throughout the day. graves,lk with frank who has a new poll out, around 5:00 eastern tonight. to find out what canadians are thinking, we will bring those to you live. thanks for that. ian, scott, jamie, we will talk to all of these fellows as we all wait. we are all looking forward to this now. 48 minutes away, this historic vote. we have lots ahead on this incial edition showdown parliament. at 3:00 p.m. eastern, coverage will continue on cbc network.

the campaign could be lost or .ould be onwon we revised our countdown clock to go to half an hour. this expected no-contest boat expected at 2:00 p.m. eastern. stay right where you are. -- this expected no-contest the vote expected at 2:00 p.m. eastern. stay right where you are. >> we will continue to bring you simulcast coverage of cbc as they watch the slated for 2:00 p.m. eastern, the no-confidence vote against the ruling conservatives today. they are also asking the house of commons to uphold a historic finding of contempt of parliament against the government. a committee ruled monday there was a breach of parliamentary privilege against the government by the speaker of the house for not fully disclosing the cost,

including the price of certain legislation in the budget that they presented earlier this week. we will go back to cbc coverage momentarily when they come back to -- when they come back from their commercial coverage. this afternoon, a discussion on the political unrest in libya, one of the briefings coming up from the defense department this afternoon at 2:00 eastern as they hear from the chairman of the joint -- the admiral of the joint staff on the situation in libya from the pentagon at 2:00 p.m. eastern. over at the atlantic council, a discussion on the influence of iran. you will hear from former senator chuck hegel, talking about the regional influence of iran, live on c-span to -- live on c-span2 at 2:30. live on saturday, haley barbour,

newt gingrich, rick santorum, michelle bachman at the conservative principles conference. and on sunday, our interview with rick santorum, this weekend on c-span. throughout april, we will feature the top winners of the c-span studentcam competition. watch winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern just before "washington journal." meet the students who created them. stream all the videos any time on line at studentcam.org. >> we will rejoin the cbc coverage momentarily. the bbc -- the bbc reports that if the motion passes today, it will trigger an election in early may. the vote stems from a ruling

monday that the conservative government was in contempt of parliament. a parliamentary committee judge that mr. parliament -- mr. harper's parliament failed to disclose the full cost of programs including corporate tax cuts, plans to purchase stealth fighter jets. they expect the no-confidence vote at 2:00 p.m. eastern, and we will likely hear from the prime minister after that. >> welcome back to this special edition of the "showdown in parliament," as the clock literally takes away on the 40th session of parliament. as it comes to a close, there will be a vote of confidence --

or non confidence in the government. the clock will be pushed back about 20 minutes. we will hear the bells about 1:48. at 2:03, you will have that vote at last. but are canadians really ready to go to the polls? who has the momentum on the eve a possible campaign? the pollsters are very busy. everyone is trying to gauge the aptitude of a foreign election. let me bring you two people who have their fingers on the pulse. the senior vice president of en vironics research. bruce anderson, the senior associate with harris weather. everybody is reading the tea leaves. how important are the polls now? clearly what has happened before may be past as prologue,

but what is their importance? >> what happens in the early polls, essentially expectations for the performance of the parties, they decide what the narrative will be in the first week or so. the gap really is 15 or 16 points in favor of conservatives, which i do not happen to believe, the narrative comes very quickly. how bad will this be for the liberals? can they find some way to survive this election? if on the other hand things have tightened up a little bit, then i think very early on the narrative, what is the rate going to look like in ontario? what outcomes are possible? >> bruce mentioned this other poll, donna, and there was a poll that came out with post media that had a whopping lead for the conservatives. a lot of people are wondering if there is a lot of fluff in that poll.

that was a lead we have never seen before, almost 19 points over the liberals. i do not even think the conservatives wanted to see a lead that big heading into an election. what is your view on how important the polls are right now? >> i think we always like to look at the pre-election polls. historically, sometimes the pre- indicator of how it will unfold. i think these polls are actually quite informative for us. at the same time, we also know that campaigns matter. if we see any pattern looking at past elections, one of the patterns that often comes up is that the party that is in the lead tends to erode a little bit over the course of a campaign. we have seen that in a number of past elections. you could name a number of elections -- 1997, 1993, and others even more recently where

you can see that pattern. we also know that things are going to happen, and campaigns are incredibly important for the way it comes in in the end. >> let's get a sense of the issues that matter to canadians. bruce, the framing of this election as we watch, ever closer to this vote of non- confidence. the opposition is trying to frame this in terms of ethics, can you trust the numbers. saying let's do this on the economy and on the budget. as you dig into what canadians care about and what they may care about over the next 40-odd days, what issues are on the top of your mind here? >> top polls generally show that health care is important, but below the surface, people are not really sure of what can be done about health care. the important matter is what people care about in this election, and there disengage

over the past several years is really stunning. the outcome will make a difference to you. after that, i think the conservatives have made a gamble, that people think, well, government cannot really do much for me, so the most i can hope for is that they will not hurt me that much. the economy is ok, let's not turn things upside down, so that's pretty good. i'm not sure that is the safest gamble because people start to pay attention at some point in the election campaign -- maybe not in the first couple of days or weeks -- but once they do, then issues start to come to the foure. it is an important change in terms of the context of the last two election campaigns. >> a couple of campaigns ago, "a government you can trust," and they ran on that.

now it seems to be flipping from a narrative point of view to the opposition. >> that was really the only test, and it was not a hard test to beat. i think this time the test is different. the question becomes will the liberals be able to take that issue and make something into a positive thing for themselves. >> donna, you talk about issues. do people care about issues like health care? are people paying attention? it is interesting because you have health care, you have key transfer agreements specifically on health will have to be renegotiated. this will affect people's health care. it will affect funding for hospitals. all these negotiations are absolutely fundamental, and yet, frankly, they seem to be partly beside the discussion we're having about this election. >> the laundry list that concerns canadians, health care

being number one and then you go to the economy and the environment, the deficit, all of these. these are the things that poll just fine when we ask about the most important issue. one of -- none of those issues i think are going to be really salient. they are very much in the future in negotiations, not something that the average canadian is going to be thinking about. i do not think that is very compelling to a lot of people. even the economy, which was a very big concern a couple of years ago now has slated -- has -- this issue of integrity, the scandals, this has really come up in the last couple of weeks in a big way, and i think that since there is political space, space in the issue environment for this to potentially become a

whether it is going to, we can not exactly predict. there is no formula for saying the scandal is going to impact, but it certainly has changed the political space, the political environment in the last couple of weeks. it has made this election a little different than a lot of us thought it could be. the opposition has a larger scheme to put in their window, whereas even a -- has a larger theme to put in their window. whether the opposition can grab hold of this in particular and run with it and make some gains. >> you talk about that issue right now as we are speaking inside the house, the leader speaking on this motion of non- confidence right now that they will vote on in a matter of 40- odd minutes. it does bring us to question as

we talked about the economy. there was not a picture of michael, if you contrast that to the ndp bus. clearly the ndp sees him as an asset. what are the polls saying about personalities and the role they play? >> talking about stephen harper and michael, they are the only two that have a reasonable chance of being prime minister. election after election, in english canada, they say there are good things about two other candidates, but it is really about these two guys. they have a lot of talent as political leaders, but neither one would come as central casting if you look from somebody who does retail politics. to the average voter in the street, both of them have a challenge in terms of being really accessible to the average voter. stephen harper has tried relatively successfully but

within the context of who he is as a person to improve upon that, and i think this past election campaign he has had mixed success under the glare of the election lights. people talk about how michael has low expectations, but the low expectations are an advantage of some -- an advantage in some respects, built upon poor perceptions of not only advertising, but people -- his knockout punch is a little bit predictable, a little over the top. he needs to work on his communication skills. in some cases though, 37 days does not give you a chance. >> we have to leave it there. the prime minister would --

the prime minister will speak after the vote. we have a poll coming out at 5:00 tonight, at a new poll that has been in the field all week since the budget to find if there is a budget bump for the government or not, and if this vote of non confidence will have an impact. we have lots of polling coming by, and make no mistakes, folks, everyone is watching what every single poll says right now. we have lots more ahead as the countdown clock moves to the historic vote of non-confidence, as it keeps getting pushed back. we are not going anywhere, and neither should you. >> here on c-span, we will rejoin our cbc simulcast coverage after their break. the house will vote on whether

to oust prime minister stephen harper. canadian news sources are saying senior white house news sources say a canadian will take over command of the situation in libya. charles bouchard has been designated by nato as the head of the alliance campaign in libya. we will have a briefing from the pentagon coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the director of the joint staff. we will have that live for you on our companion network, c- span3. at 2:30 on c-span2, a report from the atlantic council on the regional influence of iran. we'll hear from a former center from -- live at 2:30 on c-span2. >> tonight on c-span, female

bloggers and activists from the middle east discuss the civil unrest in their respective countries. they take a role in changing political systems in egypt, iraq, iran, and saudi arabia. >> iran is really bad. the situation is really bad for women and everybody in iran, but this is one side of the coin. the other side is the darker side. we live in a very dark area. nobody knows about this. we are very strong in terms of oil, and we support the west with the oil. also it is the homeland of islam. >> wants the summit tonight from new york city at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> every morning on c-span, "washington journal contel our live call-in program about the news of the day.

weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house. weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forums. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, you can see our signature programs. you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org. it is all searchable on our c- span video library. we will be back to our cbc simulcast of the expected no- confidence vote coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern in the canadian house of commons. the conservative budget plan was unveiled tuesday, immediately rejected by the three opposition parties.

they write with four parties holding seats in the house of commons, in addition to liberals and conservatives, it is difficult for a single party to gain a majority. the no-confidence vote should be coming up in about a half-hour, and we will bring you live coverage, simulcast with the cbc. >> which government do you trust with the democratic institution? >> what canadians want is stability. they want a steady hand on the wheel, a strong government, jobs, the economy, economic growth. >> a very rowdy question period

earlier today. they were debating as we leave up to this historic motion of non-confidence in the government. it is around the issue -- a special edition of "showdown in parliament." the strategy meeting up to this, we are with rose mary barton right now. rosemary? >> we have a regular contributor to our program these past few weeks because he has been on so often. let's talk first of all about the boat -- about the vote. will the prime minister be there to vote against what is happening? >> yes, he will. >> what kind of campaign are you expecting? how will this unfold? >> i think we will see two distinct campaigns. from our standpoint, we will talk about the economy and job

creation. i think we will see the opposition coalition talking about far different things. they will talk about what they consider to be ethics and democratic reform, that sort of thing. it will be a stark contrast. i do not think the opposition, particularly the liberals, have a lot to offer in terms of an economic platform, so they will try to smear the government, say why you should vote against the government instead of for them. we will take a slightly different approach. we want to talk about our record. we want to talk about the economy, the budget, which will not be implemented unless we are reelected. those are issues of substance we will bring forward. >> i notice he said opposition coalition. i wonder, though, if that is of concern to canadians. maybe they are open to the idea of a coalition and is not as scary as you guys make it out to be. >> i do nothing that is a proper characterization. i think we saw loud and clear in

2008 with the proposed coalition, a formal arrangement between the liberals, the ndp, most canadians are outraged and they spoke loud and clear. a lot of canadians are asking the question, why hasn't he come out and said no know? their convention passed a resolution? -- the convention passed a resolution. the question has been skirted and i think canadians are rightfully concerned about that. and bank that obviously is one of the themes of your campaign as well. are you concerned that this might be sort of ugly in terms of how it goes from -- maybe if we do not talk about policy enough, ideas that are out there, maybe it could turn into something else? >> yes, i think it turned -- i think it could turn into a smear

campaign election. i hope not. i hope we can express policies and differences of opinion. i believe canadians are better off now than when we were first in power five years ago. but i have a sense that the opposition will take a different tack and try to use whatever advantage they can and let's get down in the mud campaign as far as their tactical approach. >> we will see how it shapes up. >> thank you very much. >> the word "coalition" will be very much part of the arsenal of the government as they begin to start the campaign. it is absolutely under way, and that characterization, the choice between a conservative government in the coalition that they say will be bad for the economy, between the liberals and the ndp -- there is -- liberals have said there is no chance they will have a coalition, although it was not

totally ruled out. jack clayton is clearly open to it. they did not sign on, but they agreed to go along with it. interesting politics. let me bring back a couple of voices here. our chief correspondent peter mansbridge, along with peter west and rich hall. a little slippage on the countdown clock. this is all the danger of having a countdown clock, as you well know, waiting for democracy to unfold. >> i remember once doing a live phone-network special in prime time on the pope arriving in montreal by train. they told us he would be arriving in 10 minutes. 2.5 hours later, the train pulls up. we had nothing other than myself and a wonderful lady, and a nun,

and i learned a lot about the catholic church in those two hours. >> that was your own personal conclave. they do not necessarily make the trains run on time at the vatican. but the events that will finally kicked off, and we are hearing it will be about 2:03 when they do finally kick off. you saw tom there. " thatord "coalition they will be using, to really shake how this campaign is taking place. the prime minister will come out. you have watched this before. these are crucial moments in terms of trying to frame a debate, how long and successful they will be able to do that for is another question. >> the main audience for framing right now is their own caucus and candidates in the media. it is very early going here. it is a friday afternoon and

there probably is not an awful lot of people watching this vote. but all the words they use are very important key words right now, especially for them. i think that listening to just a few minutes ago, talking with rosie, the deputy government house leader, really is something. you go up to any m.p. there, and they will say the other guys are really down in the mud. they are in the mud, throwing mud, and that should not be happening. they of course are not throwing mud at all. they have not thrown any mud in the last couple of years. they have to try to appeal some of that back, but i think you'll see a lot of it -- they have to try to peel some of that back, but i think you'll see a lot of it in the next 48 hours. >> yesterday the government used the term "coalition" 17 times,

so that is clearly part of it. maybe you can update us on a little reality check on the rhetoric. stephen harper talking about this coalition. but as jack layton continues to point out, stephen harper was not in the past continuing to offer a coalition. >> mr. harper's letter was trotted out in 2004 saying, you know, if we have a minority against liberals, it might be a nice idea to form a coalition. but this is being thrown out there now. this is for their own partisan, their core vote. the word "coalition," if you look at the polls, most canadians are kind of, whatever. the conservatives are, if you really want to freak out a hard- core conservative, evoke images

of different people as the ministers. they get them working on this campaign to stop the dreaded coalition. for the rest of canadians, the polls do not show they are one way or the other with it. >> there is another side of this coalition debate, not just a fear factor. what it does, if there is a sense that the liberals and the ndp might endeavor to have a coalition, the liberal strategy is very much to prevent the vote from theel off voters ndp. maybe that split the left's vote and that helps conservatives. >> that is a big concern. i remember asking paul martin if it was time to unite the left because the liberals had had so much of a success in splitting

conservative voters with the reform party of the day. the liberal strategy will be clear early on, they have been out with an ad campaign early on, in five centers across the country, and they will focus on the negative aspects of the conservative government. the next objective is to get michael out there. stephen harper is a very known commodity, and that works to your favor if you like him, against if you do not. polling shows that. a key part of the race is making sure that from a liberal's point of view, michael is as recognizable as jack layton. a lot of it will matter, that is where liberals hoped to regain seats. they have to support that -- that have to suppress that vote. >> one of the operations here is

money. we know conservatives have the most money and they have been trying to frame canadians' perceptions before it drops. with a level playing field, everyone gets more air time. the conservatives having more of a war chest does not help them any more. how does that help them in terms of not just the money but the organization on the ground? >> i think that is what is key. conservatives are a very well- oiled machine when it comes to campaigns. they have done it before, they know how to rule it out. and the ndp, too, is the same team, playing this the same way for some time. the liberals had almost no one there then that is still here now. a lot of the liberals that arguing this this time our new, with the exception perhaps of the chief of staff, peter, who

with michael a gaseous -- michael ignatius. liberals feel quite reassured by that because they feel that peter is a winner that can get in the winter of what they are ignatius is not the proven winner. they have to get over that hurdle. one of the things that's interesting, michael ignatius' face is not on that liberal bus, and there is a reason for that. jack layton's face is huge on his bus, and there is a reason for that. they need to play to their strengths, and for the liberals it might be more about branding, at least at this early stage. >> just so you know, a speech is being made, and he just mentioned this 2004 coalition and he has told me the same thing, the invocation to the --

this invitation to the hotel when they talked about bringing down paul martin. before we cut to a commercial, peter, if you want to comment on what happens -- the playing field kind of levels during a campaign, and of course that factors into what we are seeing, and you are both -- you and i are both watching. everytime you turn on the television, there is a political ad, and that could change very quickly. >> that part of the playing field does level. the team around the leader, those putting the campaign together, may not level. there are some people who are pros and some people are not so professional with these kinds of things. there is a little room in a 35- came -- there is little room in a 35-day campaign to make mistakes. there used to be this rule of thumb in campania -- there used

to be this rule of thumb in canadian elections that if you came into the campaign high in the polls, you would win. it was hard to make up by anybody else. i am not sure that is the case anymore. things can move very quickly, rapidly in the province of quebec. we have seen that happen before. nationally things can change. the 1988 campaign, the liberals started off in a horrible state. at one. , -- at one point, john turner look like they were going to come back in 1988 with less than 20 seats. there was a debate in the middle of that campaign, turner played very strongly on the passion of the free-trade issue. he kind of had that passion on the democracy issue.

that changed. he still lost the election, but the liberals came back with 82 seats, and it was almost seen as a victory. but that campaign started with end it -- with ed sending his people over to joe. i think they did 20% on the final selection, which was great for the ndp, the highest mark ever. but things can change, so everybody has got to go into this thing knowing that, that things can change over the next five weeks. >> i think with the advent of social media, how fast things moves right now -- how fast things move right now, with the arts funding in quebec, the way things to over. let's take a quick break. we are counting down to the non-

confidence vote in the house of confidence -- in the house of commons over an issue of content. this one is about contempt. we are about 80 minutes away. there will be two votes -- we are about 18 minutes away. there will be two votes. we know something is going to happen. we have more coverage of that. we are live on this "showdown in parliament." lots to come. stay with us. >> we will be back to cbc coverage shortly. you can also post your thoughts on the politics in ottawa at our website, c-span.org, the twitter link there. the cbc website also has their parliament hill ticker a couple indicating that stephen harper, the prime minister, will not be taking questions, although the cdc has mentioned he will be

speaking after the vote at 2:00 p.m. eastern. we bring you national coverage every week, and this week during open quote question time," british prime minister david cameron will respond to inquiries about new power in the u.k. and miller band also asked about an update on the state of libya. ."rime minister's questions coming up tonight, a discussion on women in the middle east. it comes up tonight at 8:00, looking at women in the middle east, women who are protesting against their governments policies. that is tonight at 8:00. >> i am a numbers guy. >> as the visual op-ed columnist for "the new york times," charles blow talk about charts

and graphs. >> i really do search for data first and see if it says something interesting, something that kind of agrees with an opinion that i have or sometimes surprises me and i think would surprise my readers. >> "q&a," sunday night on c- span. this weekend, chuck colson talk about the watergate break-in, the secret white house tapes, and his relationship with the 37th president. and ruth simmons on slavery and its impact on academia. also, remembering the father of the constitution. the assertion that james madison should be known as the father of american politics. go to c-span slot -- go to c-

span.org/history. house and senate members have been spending the working week in their home districts. that gives you a chance to catch up on the dates you have missed in the first few months of the 112th congress. short-term spending bills, repeal of health care, and patent law reform, all online at c-span's congressional chronicle, with timelines in transcripts -- with timelines in transcript. momentarily here on c-span, we will rejoin our cbc simulcast of the no-confidence vote in the house of confidence -- in the house of commons in canada. the prime minister submitted his budget plan this week, and a house committee controlled by the opposition liberal party ruled that the conservative government acted in contempt by failing to disclose that budget. in that budget, the full cost of a number of government programs.

the house is set to vote on that note-confidence measure, just after 2:00 p.m. eastern. if it passes, a vote will be held in may for a new government. that motion reads the house agrees with the finding of the standing committee on procedure and house affairs that the government is in contempt of parliament, which is unprecedented in canadian parliamentary history, and consequently the house has lost confidence in the government. that vote coming up shortly. back to cbc coverage momentarily as well, here on c-span. >> you are looking at a live shot, not the most exciting shot we have got, but that is the podium in the house of commons, were the prime minister is expected to speak very soon, we think right after this historic vote on confidence in the

government, historic because it would be over a motion of content, holding this government in contempt. that has never happened in canadian history. that will kick off a political process that will lead to an election, likely a second, although we do not know. , "theined by scott reed watts.or's" jamie chris hall standing by here in the studio. let me start with you. just on his feet in the house, making a very fiery speech, defending the relevance of the block in the house. also saying why he will vote on this issue of non-conference and why he believes the government is in contempt. how does that way out now? we're talking about

advertisements and how this campaign unfolds in quebec. >> i think the one thing to talk about is brought up by the deputy house leader earlier. the dreaded coalition. let's remember something here. the vast majority of people who separatistsot themselves. as telegenic and as great as it may be, the main reason by their popularity is because the liberals have sullied their brand in quebec, and the conservatives have basically done the same at the end of the last election. he is not's face it, -- he is another elder statesman in canadian politics, an extremely good parliamentarian. >> much as i hate to say it. >> i think conservatives are overplaying this evil separatist hand just a little bit.

>> along the lines of what ian said, it is beautifully canadian that a separatist is outside the conservative base, actually quite a good politician. >> winning every single day, even the english ones, i might add. >> i was going to say, listen, that is all well and fine, but the real secret to the success of the block is that they have been able to say to quebec we are a home team first, and that has penetrated beyond. here is the big challenge for liberals and conservatives. toand large -- who is going have success in digging into the black vote? that would be an earthquake in terms of expectations as compared to where we are now. i do not know that harper is

doing a great service to himself by saying the word "separatist" over and over again. it rubs people the wrong way, particularly if you're a separatist voters in quebec. -- particularly if you are a separatist voter in quebec. >> i would say that harper knows what he has to do to move forward in this election, and one of the things he will do is make the choice very clear. the choice is going to be between a harper government or a coalition. that is a fact. he has said it 17 times apparently in the house question period yesterday. it is showing they have the ability to maintain message discipline. michael a. canadians is not going to be able to -- michael ignatius is not going to be able

to advance. it means that he is losing, not making the -- >> jamie, hang on. [all speaking at once] >> one thing about the conservatives being in the block vote, that actually happens in quebec city. the conservatives did a good job of doing that. what they did not do is capitalize on that with the arts funding. >> when i was going to say -- sometimes the conservatives outsmart themselves. it is all strategy, all politics, and there is a risk. there is a risk here, and we have seen the prime minister step in before the crisis this past year. there is a risk that you continue to talk about coalition. it brings up another issue, which is the prime minister's character. because why? what are we talking about here?

you have greg weston saying this guy actually favored a coalition for his purposes. context matters, and he has the context when it comes to this issue. >> we have 30 seconds left. >> canadians mike -- canadians might like a coalition. you do not shovel your walk only in snow, you shovel everybody's walked. -- your shovel everybody's walk. it is asaying is that didn't -- it is a legitimate constitutional option, and we should not be pretending it is not. >> scott reed, jamie what, martin patrick, and ian. you're watching a special

edition of "showdown in parliament." thank you for watching in manitoba. we are back to your local programming. we will continue. >> our cbc coverage will continue when they come back from a break with a vote, the no-confidence vote expected sometime after 2:00 eastern. coming up on c-span2, we will take you to a discussion on iran and its regional influence. a discussion with former senator chuck hegel and former u.s. ambassador to the eu stewart eisenstaedt. that is at 2:30 on c-span2. >> tonight on c-span, female blotters, writers, and activists from the middle east discuss the unrest in their country. they take a role in changing political systems in egypt,

iraq, iran, and saudi arabia. >> iran is really bad. the situation is bad for women and everybody, but this is one side of the coin. the other side is saudi arabia, the darkest side. we live in a very dark area. our voices have never been hurt because we are very strong in terms of oil. we support the west with the oil. and it is the homeland of its slump. >> wants the summit tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on "booktv," a panel discussion on john hinckley jr.'s failed assassination of president ronald reagan. on "after words," -- and a

panel on medicine and science, the vietnam war, and more. find a complete schedule at booktv.org. ahead of our "booktv" coverage this weekend, the night of prime-time coverage on c-span2, a panel of journalists, judges about fair court proceedings. can take proceedings affect the outcome of files? momentarily we will take you back to our coverage from the cbc of the expected no- confidence vote, coming up shortly in the canadian house of commons in iowa. the prime minister submitted his budget this week in a house committee controlled by the opposition liberal party, ruling that the conservative party acted in contempt by failing to disclose in that budget the full cost of a number of government programs. the house is set to vote just

after 2:00 eastern. if that vote passes, a vote will be held in may for a new government. the conservatives came to power in 2006 but need opposition support to pass legislation. recent polls suggest the conservative party will retain power in may, although not enough seats to maintain a majority. >> like on the outside, they are waiting for an historic non confidence joe -- vote. that will make history. you're watching a special live edition of power politics "showdown in parliament." i want to bring a special welcome to our viewers in saskatchewan and alberta. welcome to this unfolding story

about our country. it will all hinge on what you are about to see in the minutes ahead. the longestg for serving speaker to re-enter the house. then he will preside over this motion of non confidence that the liberals brought forward earlier this week. that will incite this government in contempt of parliament for the first time in history. that should bring us toward a general election. and watching all this unfold with me, and they have been here for hours, the marathon people chris hall, greg preston, and rose mary barton has been on her feet. and now peter mansbridge is joining us. we have heard from the strategists. to farot cast our minds forward, peter. let's just set out the drama

that we are about to see. there have been a lot of motions of non-confidence. this has happened before, but not like this. a government has never fallen this way before. >> not this way, not on a confidence motion like this on contempt of parliament. but even in the bigger picture, the government has not fallen by a vote of the house of commons very often in the history of our country. this is only the fifth or sixth time that this will have happened. i was there in 1979 and there was a lot of trauma that night because you did not -- and drama that night because you did not know what was going to happen. you did not know if the liberals were really going to do it. the motion was actually proposed by bob bray, the m.v.p. at that time. that was a dramatic night. on the issue of contempt of parliament, and on the very fact

that this kind of process does not happen very often in our country. it is a good history lesson for all of us. >> it is a history lesson, and of course, is making history. rose mary barton, of course, you are in there and we are minutes away. this is the first time that this has happened. a bit of confusion -- what will happen, rose mary, it seems that there will be two votes that will unfold, something the conservatives brought forward this morning and then the main vote on the motion of non- confidence around contempt. can you get any information for our viewers? >> i think the one we are expecting at 2:00 or 3:00 is just a motion that will be put to the house. of course, they could all agree on that and did not be a stand of the vote. then they will move to the confidence vote. i should tell you that our colleagues inside the chamber,

the galleries are stacked. the press gallery is? , the press is all -- the press gallery is stacked. everybody wants to be here for the important -- this important moment in our history. many people are here crossing the aisles, shaking hands. some of them are here to take photos of the house of commons, which as you know, is not allowed. >> and peter, just before we go, some very fiery speeches about this motion of non-confidence and content. you have been watching it. it is rare to see this kind of passion. and now there is some handshaking. some of these folks might not make it back. >> they might not. some of them deliberately will not be coming back because they are not running again, but some will lose their seats.

it is a passionate moments and one that i am not surprised that some of them are trying to sneak pictures on their blackberries or they're smart phones, or whatever -- or on their smart phones, or whatever they might have. >> it looks like a train might be actually a writing at the station. and when it does, we are going to go to you live. there it is. there is the 0 on the slayed. -- on the slate. the speaker is supposed to come on. and we will see these two votes. as rose mary said, just imagine the scene inside where there are cameras there. we do not control those cameras. it is packed with the motion right now. this is the first time we will see a vote on non-confidence with contempt, a government has never been held in contempt. the vote will take place and

then afterwards, the prime minister will make his speech. the podium is already set up right outside. the prime minister will announce when he is going to the governor general. these next few moments ahead are very crucial. the clock is at 0, peter. but 0 does not necessarily mean 0 as we wait for liftoff. there are a lot of delays because everybody is positioning. you know the party whips, those folks in charge of making sure that all of the bus are in the right seat, they have the votes and are in charge of this. >> it is a flip back to 1979, because it was such a dramatic moment as well. many folks did not know it was going to come down to this. it was called pairing, as you know, where other parties

agreed. they will have a couple of members not sit in to cancel out those votes. that night, as soon as the vote -- and this was the amazing thing about that night, as soon as the vote was over and the governor was defeated, everybody through papers up in the air and was happy and shaking hands, like you say they are doing now, because there was the belief that they had a shot at winning this thing. there was a poll that showed the liberals ahead by about 10 or more points, i think. the conservatives were convinced that people would rebel against the idea of their government been defeated on a budget. they did not. trudeau came back with a convincing majority shortly after that. but the horror around at night, vote -- 10:30t to vot

p.m. it was a night to remember. >> there is a lot of conversation back and forth, as you say. this has happened before, chris hall. you can talk about this. peter talks about what happened with joe clark in 1979. we do not know what will happen, but the harbor government may transfer after five years into a majority government. >> we all assume that the vote is going to be against the government, that mr. harper, the prime minister will adjourn the house and then talk about what his intentions are. the polls are trending in one way over the last little bit with the conservatives having a lead, the campaigns do matter and it is not clear at all how this might play out. in the west, for example, where they are watching this now,

there is some battling for a very important seat. jack clayton heading directly to be with his mp in alberta. and they believe that there is an opportunity to score some point out west. >> and peter, yesterday i was talking to bill, who is not running. he worked for sven robinson and was the mp for a long time. he said that in the last five years he has learned more about parliament and how it works because he has worked in the last seven years in the minority context. and he said, once you get into these minority parliament, you understand the minutia of the procedure, the details of how democracy unfolds and we are seeing it in front of us right now. >> it sounds like a fascinating

dinner conversation, evan. [laughter] >> i love it. >> tell me, the countdown clock that has been going on the screen for the last three hours, it was all to bring us to this point to where we could look at the screen with the writing on it? >> this is the thing about democracy. you have been to shuttle liftoffs. the best record -- rockets take time to leave the ground. we are going to the moon right now. the truth is, we cannot predict when this darn thing is going to start, but more importantly, we cannot predict how it is going to end. and as you say, it is easy to get lost in the weeds here. >> [laughter] >> but nonetheless, the consequences are big. and when useyou first start covering this, there is no question that is very exciting. >> i can see it on rose mary

space. well, here we go. >> the countdown clock finally pays off. [applause] , the whips are talking to each other and shaking hands. they will begin what will be the procedure toward this non- confidence vote. it will be very interesting to see what the speaker says. >> the question is on the previous question on the motion related to the business of supply. the hon. chief government whip is rising out of order. >> i will try this again, mr. speaker. i believe you will find unanimous consent in the house that the previous question answered earlier today be withdrawn. >> unanimous consent proceeding. the motion is now withdrawn.

the government is in contempt of -- and -- in contempt of parliament. is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? all in favor of the motion will please say yea. [cheers] all opposed to the motion please say no. hauff [boos] in my opinion, the yeas have it. all in favor of the motion, please rise. [applause] >> rohack [-- >> [roll call]

[identifying those in favor]

[applause]

[identifying tiose in favor] [applause] [, identifying those in favor]

[applause] [roll call]

>> all those opposed to the motion will please rise. [applause] [cheers and applause] chanting and clapping] [identifying those opposed]

[applause]

[identifying those i opposed]

>> we do not know what it will be. here is the speaker, peter mcginn. he will add up the votes. >> yeas, 156. mays, 145. -- nays, 145. [applause] >> history is made, 156-145. >> it is moved at -- i move and

seconded that the house now adjourn. >> mr. harper moves that the -- mr. harper move, seconded by mr. barrett, that the house now adjourn. >> i agree that the motion is buried. >> and that is how the conservative government of stephen harper conceded. the liberals have 1156--- the 156-145.have onewon they have won the non confidence vote with contempt in the parliament. the prime minister will be speaking soon. as the speaker walks away, we will get reaction from peter mansbridge.

peter, jubilation on the part of the opposition, but there is a fight ahead. >> it was very interesting to watch because the liberals alter up their papers as they did in 1979. and i think the conservatives through theirs up in the air, but in this case, the conservatives, nothing, no paper at all because they are claiming that this was a terrible thing that has happened to them, and it was. because no matter what happens from here on in, stephen harper and his government will be known as the only government in the history of canada that has been voted down in parliament because , the majority of the that content in parliament. that will always be attached to the history of this government. today continue to use -- continues to unfold.

you see the podium set up for the prime minister to speak. they're leaving the hallway, for the last time in this government and we will see how many come back. the prime minister will address the nation about what happens next. the government has been defeated. it does not happen often. and as you say, it does not happen often on this issue. >> we are waiting for the prime minister. if we do not know what he will say, but as you say, he will outline the next steps. he will likely go to the governor general, as likely as -- as early as tomorrow morning. you said this will be like a tattoo on his government. will this play out in the campaign? how will this issue of being in contempt for the first time in history, how will this play out? let's get reaction as we watch this.

it rose mary, people are streaming out after a very emotional and a historic moment. >> i have not even been able to talk to m p's. they're running out of the door so fast, i guess, heading home to get their campaigns under way. two independents just went past me that actually voted with the government. very important people from the prime minister's office, the prime minister's chief of staff and others, everybody wanted to not witnessed the amazing moment. and there is a sense -- i know peter said that he could see it on my face, but it is true. it is a very exciting time. whether you thought this should happen or not, it is a very exciting place to be right now. everybody is turning to the big and long campaign ahead of them. we have to hear from the prime

minister and see how this is going to play over the next 24 hours. we expect that he will head over to the governor general by tomorrow morning. i already know i will be in edmonton tomorrow with ojakli tin. -- with its jack layton. >> this will end very quickly, but not before the primary mr. has something to say. and the challenge now, peter, -- the prime minister has something to say. and the challenge now, peter, is trustee the opposition's framing of this -- is to see the opposition's framing of this. it is something that they have labeled sioncontent. we are not just seeing history here, but a playbook of the entire campaign at least, as the beginning unfolds. >> we are certainly seeing the first 48 hours of it unfolds.

they will all stick to these kinds of messages in the first 48 hours, but they will have to move on to something else. i would be shocked if a week from now we are still talking about this, because other parties have to put out their policies. they have to move issues into other areas. the liberals will keep on working, trying to play the ethics card. there will also work on the economy. we know that canadians find this mildly amusing, but they are not calling on this every day, what happens in the process of parliament. but they do worry about their jobs, their health care, and a lot of other things that we have not talked about very often in these last few weeks, at least in the headlines of what has been happening in ottawa. >> let's just go back to 1979, because you talk about joe clark and clearly, history does not repeat, but there is an echo. personalities do play a role and

that famous joe who? does play a role. perhaps the opposition is using this as a way to shape the character of the opposition. and character matters. >> yes, it does, and they will try to make that message clearly over the next few days. but they have got to expand on that. they have got to go elsewhere as well. it is interesting. he has taken a lot of hits in the media over the last couple of years, and he has taken a lot of hits by the state's advertising that the conservatives have put out over the last couple of years. that can cut both ways. if he does not look quite like the kind of person that the conservatives have made him into on the campaign, that could work in his favor. if expectations really are low

and he does not fall that low, then it makes him look perhaps even better than he really is because he is above them. we will have to see how that one plays out. for stephen harper, he was looked at in a certain way and it was not very flattering by many canadians. that has -- that image has changed over the years. everyone's a while that dips back down for him. where it is right now, all -- every once in awhile that dips back down for him. where it is right now, we will have to look at these polls. there was one today that showed a much narrower gap than the one that was out yesterday. these things will change in a week to 10 days. most canadians at this point do not know the government is defeated and they do not know there will be an election in the next five or six weeks. when they start focusing on that, we will start to see some decisions made, and also interest levels are key to all

of this. >> we are shaking up the water a bid and would have to let it settle. at the risk of another countdown clock, we are looking at another podium. i know folks are wondering why we have an exciting shot of an empty podium there. we do know that the prime minister is going to make a speech and we do not know when. >> if i could build on something that peter was saying, canadians do not have a clear definition of michael and they absolutely do not have a clear definition of what the party stands for. this is supposed to be a post advertising sponsorship scandal.

rolling out an alternative to the conservatives is going to be considerable and that's got to be very catchy and must connect to canadians. especially with michael ignatief, who the public does not connect with very well. >> the truth is that governments have to be defeated. people do not usually vote in the old government's. stephen harper has gotten points, whether he has deserved them are not for being a good story of this economy. the platform that they were on and things they were trickling up -- money for kids' programs, money for poor seniors. it was really quite a campaign

document. there is also the tone issue, evan, that we have to pay attention to. these people did not have a lot of respect for each other on both sides. we have heard one say, how is it possible to trust this prime minister and at the same time negotiate with him? as you point out, this motion is about contempt. it will be interesting to see how workable those kinds of attitudes are. in the end, a lot of people who have been turned off by public's -- by politics, it will be interesting to see how the campaign plays on that. >> there is a lot of news coming out. we are hearing about how the liberals will be running and not running. ipad are waiting for the doors to open behind that podium and then we will see the prime minister -- we are waiting for the doors to open behind the podium and then we will see the prime minister come out.

what do you have for us? >> there were a couple of empty chairs during this vote. and one of them was a man who chose not to be here for this day. in his office said he was a way of dealing with some business. i think that was an interesting choice to make. he is leaving politics, so he did not want to be here for that day. and that just came out on twitter, actually, that he was not planning on running again. he is well known up here on parliament hill for his procedural mind. he really knows everything about how parliament is run, and the roles. just about the issue of content and whether that will stick, obviously, we do not know. in one way for the opposition party to make its stake is to talk about how the conservative party came into the government and the platform that they did run on, that they were going to

clean up and do things differently. and they leave now in a very different position, having been found in contempt for not sharing information, for not being forthcoming, and for other issues swirling around them, including the story of senior aides to the prime minister -- senior aide to the prime minister, boris robinson. this may pop up again during the campaign. if opposition parties can contrast what they sold to canadians so long ago and what they have now, that issue may not go away if they can do a good job of selling that. >> peter, when you look back at campaigns and then now, even you were not around for 1925, 1926. i do not want to go back to favre. >> a good one. [laughter] >> but there have always been issues, even the 1926 campaign.

there was seeking a fair and the dissolving parliament. -- the king affair and the dissolving parliament. it is always a bit complicated. do campaigns need a simple issue? the relatively emotional, similar debates. these kind of complicated issues kind of dissolve as we look back in history. >> yeah, they do. it is a hard one to sell. you watched him trying to sell it in his speech this morning. and he was going for high ground of democracy as opposed to the procedural stuff. he has got to pitch it there if it is going to fly as a big campaign issue. it is still going to be difficult. the key to what happens is what happens when the podium doors open.

when he comes out and speak at the podium -- speaks at the podium, the kind of language that he uses, his left tenneco pretty hard in the house of commons -- let tenants -- leftenents were going pretty hard in the house of commons in the last few days. how many times is he going to say, "coalition?" we should put a clock on that one and see what happens. it should be a signal here, okay, we are out of this place. most canadians think that is this kind of partisanship every day and that is overly dramatic.

now we set a new level of proper debate through the campaign. is that what he is going to reach for now? it will be interesting if he does, not only for his own party, but for the other party. >> clearly, and we talked about this earlier, the government does not want to take credit and responsibility for the selection process. they keep calling it and and noand unnecessary election. maybe there is a moment where the prime minister leaves the partisanship. tone is crucial. canadians may not be paying attention yet, but they may be paying more attention because, let's face it, there will be more ads and we are into this election cycle. >> there is uncertainty around the world right now. we have libya and canadians

involved in that effort there. the doors are beginning to be opened to the house of commons, so we will see the prime minister soon. he is only the price minister until the label is dropped and then he becomes the leader of the conservative party. it is important that he let people know what his government represents as he moves forward. but he is not the kind of person to refrain from partisan jabs in the past. i would not expect him to change character at this point. i would expect him to be forceful and aggressive. i think he will say this election is unnecessary and threatens the economy of the country. it would be those sorts of words that would per -- that would indicate that he is ready to fight this hard. >> i want to make one quick point before he does come out, he is not taking any questions. since the budget, the cry minister has taken exactly two questions from the media. -- the prime minister has taken

exactly two questions from the media. he is not taking any questions now. if you are going to hear some frustration from the media after he leaves that -- you are going to hear some frustration from the media after he leaves the podium. if you are in a campaign, that is just not going to work. i would expect some yelling as he leaves the podium without taking any questions about how he feels, why does this happen, how he feels about whether this is going to be in and out. he will not be taking any questions to hold him a little bit to account here. >> well, it worked for trudeau. >> peter, go ahead. >> it worked for trudeau in 1980. a heated -- there was no debate. he did one event per day. everything was controlled and he took no chances. i know rosie will be shouting.

>> [laughter] >> it will be interesting. >> we have under two minutes, we think, until the prime minister arrives. rose mary said, people want to know what the prime minister is thinking about these historic events that just happened. >> we were talking earlier about how the prime minister has been shielded about all of this. he has not been in evidence, pretty much, most of the week. this will be the first time that we will really hear anything substantial from him. and he has the one advantage of being the prime minister, so he will appear, mr. real. [no audio] -- prime ministerial. [no audio] >> are coverage will

continue in just a moment. the vote was 156-145, with stephen harper losing that no- confidence vote. on monday, the government was receiving that no-confidence vote with contempt. here is the prime minister. >> [speaking french] >> good afternoon. i will be brief. and the global economy remains fragile. the economic recovery in canada remains strong, but it must remain our priority. that is why the economy is and will continue to be my top rarity -- my top priority as prime minister and all the members of parliament that are part of the conservative government.

that is what canadians expect from us in parliament, from all of us in parliament. the budget on table this week by the minister of finance, the next phase of the economic action plan is of critical importance to complete the economic recovery. it is intended to support growth, create jobs, and to help those who are in need with affordable measures. and all of this without increasing taxes of any kind. not only does this content reflects the participation of all canadians and of the other political parties, it also benefits from the firm and solid support of canadians. in fact, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the budget that the opposition could

not or would not support. unfortunately, mr. ignatief and his partners in the coalition made it clear that they have already decided to have an election. the fourth election in canada in seven years, an election that canadians clearly did not want. so, today's vote, which of course, is a disappointment to me, will also disappoint those canadians, in my view. as a consequence, i will have to be meeting with the governor general tomorrow to inform him of the situation and to take the only possible course. i can give you my assurance that our first priority will continue to be stability and security for all canadians. -- all canadians in global

circumstances the remain extremely difficult. good afternoon, i will be brief. of a global economy is still fragile. the economy is and will continue to be the number-one priority for me as prime minister and all the members of our conservative government. this is what canadians expect of us in parliament, all of us. the budget tabled by, -- this week by the minister of finance, the next phase of canada's economic action plan is critical to promote economic recovery. it seeks to promote growth, create jobs, and help those in need with affordable measures and to do all of these things without raising taxes. its contents not only reflected the wide input of canadians, including the input of other political parties, it has the strong support of canadians.

indeed, there was nothing, absolutely nothing in the budget that the opposition could not or should not have supported. unfortunately, mr. ignatief and his coalition partners made it abundantly clear that they wanted to force an election instead. canada's fourth election in seven years, and election canadians had told them clearly that they do not want. thus, the vote today, which obviously disappoints me, will, i suspect might disappoint most canadians. as a consequence, i will have to meet with the governor general tomorrow to advise him of the situation and to take the only course of action that remains. let me assure you that our party will remain to ensure stability and security for canadians in what remained extremely challenging global circumstances.

after i have met with governor general johnston tomorrow, i will be in a position to take your questions. >> prime minister stephen harper delivering his first words after this historic vote of non confidence in matters of content. he did not take any questions, but he said, and let me just go over a couple of things. he said the vote disappointed me and he said a disappointed canadians as well. now he will meet with the governor general tomorrow, the only possible course of action, he said. he will do that tomorrow. he called mr. aho ignatief -- mr. ignatief and his coalition, that they should have supported the budget, but did not. he did not take any questions, except he did say he was disappointed with the vote and

that tomorrow after he meets with the governor general he will be in a position to take questions. peter mansbridge, let me get reaction from you. the language that we were speculating on, he did, indeed, use the term coalition. very interesting speech. >> it was, but i think it was what we expected. he tried to take the prime ministerial road. the only use the word " coalition" once, as opposed to the 42 times that john barrett managed to get it into each sentence. it is very clear we are headed for a campaign. the other interesting thing is that he was very specific. he said his focus was a single focus on this campaign, basically the economy and taking canada through the very dangerous waters that exist on that front.

it will be interesting to see if over five weeks he manages to maintain that strategy. -- that strategy, that nothing douses him off that strategy. that will be key for the conservatives. >> and michael ignatief will come in and speak in a moment and that will be key. but you are right, he talked about the fragile global economy. steadiness in an unsteady world, in an uncertain world. it rose mary barton, you said he was not going to take questions. any reaction from being right in front of him? >> i guess, that was predictable. that is the way he was choosing to do things today. it will be encouraging to know that he will take questions tomorrow. we will be able to hear from him more directly. i think there are more questions to ask. he said there was nothing in the budget that the opposition party could not support.

clearly, that is not true. and if he wanted to avoid an election, the m.v.p. would say to him he could have to pony up another 400 million for the income supplements. i think there will be questions about why he thinks there was enough in there for opposition parties, and why he legitimately did not want an election as well. i think he will continue to hear conservatives say this is an unnecessary election, but i do not think that line takes you very far down the road in this campaign because it is happening. saying it is unnecessary will not necessarily get you a vote. in >> i do not disagree with rosy, but i think i understand why they are doing it.

when they pry minister said that the michael ignatief-led coalition -- in other words, the tone of the press release was that the prime minister is trying to stay above the fray to a certain point. in fairness to him, he was very measured. in the past he has shown his anger and frustration. this time he keyed in on a few different little point and most of them focused on the economy. >> i recognize this strategy in the prime minister saying it is a fragile recovery. you just have the finance minister on tuesday saying how robust the growth is being and now the prime minister is saying it is fragile, so we have to be careful. the government cannot have it both ways. >> like many things coming up in this campaign, do not believe everything you hear or read.

this whole narrative of the economy is fragile, be careful of dot, the cautious, obviously, that is leading the voters to one thing, which is, this is no time to change government. stick with what you have got. we are the tried and true. and to the prime minister's credit, we have been through a very difficult, a tumultuous time in the world with an economic crisis that we have not seen in decades. and most canadians are getting their jobs back, or most jobs back. they are rebounding economically, family incomes are returning to where they were. that is a very powerful message for them to take into this campaign. it is an easy one for them to do. they now have a budget that is full of enough but -- and of goodies for them to have a photo op. that is what we will see in the coming weeks, stephen harper handing out a little to

everybody. >> there are lots of different ways to look at the how fragile as the economy and whether or not there should be a campaign during its. i seem to recall during the campaign of 2008, the economy looked more fragile than. >> let me just interrupt because michael ignatief is just stepping up to the microphone. >> we were present for an historic moment in our democracy, a prime minister condemned by the house of commons, for contempt of parliament. he lost the confidence of the house of commons. and we have just seen a news conference -- well, it was not really a news conference because he did not take any questions, nor did he refer to the fact that this is the first prime minister in the history of canada who has just been judged guilty of contempt of parliament.

he continues to show contempt for democracy by not even mentioning the fact in front of you a few moments ago. we are here to present a liberal team, as you see around me, a team that is proud, a team that is unified, and a team that will present a clear alternative to the harper government. that means a government that respects democracy, that wants canada to be a green country , a country that is proud on the international scene, a canada that looks after their priorities as opposed to fighter jets and goodies for large corporations. and for the next 36 days, we will be appealing to all canadians and more than 60% of

canadians will work to not only restrain mr. harper, but replace him. and we will demonstrate an alternative to a government that has shown contempt for the government and simply ignores the priorities of the canadian people. we are disappointed with the waste we have seen by this government. we are calling on environmentalists and others who want a federal government who will act on the environment, and we are also appealing to all of those out there with a social conscience that want to help the poor, that want to help the most disadvantaged among us, that want to help families come out of crisis. if we are appealing to all of these people and saying, please come into the big liberal tent.

mrs. an historic moment in which the prime minister can has found -- been found guilty of contempt of parliament. and then we see something more incredible, and prime minister comes out and from of u.n. instead of taking any questions or even addressing the issue of his lack of democracy, he confirmed his lack of democracy by going out and making a statement that makes no mention of this historic moment in history. this tells you all you need to know about this man. and we are here as a united liberal team saying we want to form an alternative to the harper government that respects democracy, that respects canadian citizens, that respects our institutions and that gets back to the priorities of canadian families. child-care when you need it, help to get your kids into college and university, care when your family gets old in

your home, a secure retirement, energy efficiency, green jobs, and finally, restoring canada's place in the world. we can all take pride as citizens of canada and that we are citizens of the world. these are the terms we will offer during the next 36 days of the campaign with me and my team fanning out across the country to bring a message of hope is that of a message of fear, a message of unity instead of a message of division, a message of principle and some of the constant politics of personal destruction. this is where the choices lie. and it is extremely important that canadians understand that if you are a disillusioned conservative wondering where the conservatives are going, wondering about the waste in government, and if you are one of those compassionate people who wants to restore our place in the world, then come on into

the big red tent at the center of a compassionate heart of canadian politics. there are only two alternatives here, more of this disrespect for democracy, more of this discontent of the canadian people, or a passionate and irresponsible liberal government. >> with respect to the coalition, we understand you want to form a liberal government, but since you are still in the opposition, can you please tell us whether yes or no, the coalition is an option? >> all this talk about the coalition is ridiculous. it is just a smokescreen. they say this because they are afraid of the real alternative, which is the liberal alternative. what i have said, and i will repeat it a thousand times if necessary, i am in politics to create a liberal government full of compassion, responsible, open

to the rest of the world. a liberal government that respects the democracy -- that respects democracy rather than theing contencontempt for it as prime minister did a few minutes ago. >> if the conservatives win the most seats you will not seek a coalition, is that where you are saying? >> i have been in politics and been liberal since i was 17. it is in my veins. i am here to create a liberal alternative to the conservative government. let me make it more clear. if you vote for the ndp, if you vote for the greens, if you got a vote for the block, you will get more of this and canadians are saying enough. i cannot -- i cannot be clear enough. >> you are not being clear at all, sir. few believe the coalition -- do you believe the coalition will

advance an agenda that you pursue -- >> i have answered the question. >> you have not. if you do not answered on the first day of the campaign, how do we expect you to answer it later? >> the thing every voter needs to understand, when they cast their ballot -- and they are the boss here -- if you vote for the ndp, and if you vote for the block and if you vote for the greens, you'll get more of this, contempt for the government and contempt for democracy. the only alternative is a passionate and -- a compassionate and irresponsible liberal government. >> [speaking french] >> how will you explain this to canadians who are primarily concerned about the economy? >> speaking french -- [speaking

french] >> when you make choices that will harm the economy in the long term, you have to choose democracy. you have to have an alexian. mr. harper's i did is that when you have an election, it will threaten the economy and democracy reduced ability of the country. that is absolutely ridiculous. the citizens are being asked to decide on the future of their country. the economic future of this country, and will present an alternative that is full of compassion, an alternative that will create jobs and security for people, and i am very optimistic. on democracy and on the economy both. >> you said that your intention and hope is a former liberal government on election night.

that did not happen on election night, but rather, motors determined that a minority -- voters determine that a minority government is what they want. will you accept that? >> let me be very clear. any democratic politician, in the democratic top politician, and i am a democratic politician right to the bottom of my feet, respect the verdict of the people. i am here to present to canadians right now the clear choice between a liberal government and a conservative government and to say as clearly as i can to the canadian people, if you vote for anybody else, you will get more of mr. harper. so it is perfectly clear, there is no confusion. they want to replace mr. harper, and i would point out, more than 60% of the canadian public, instable firms have said that they don't support mr. harper,

the time has come to replace mr. harper with this incredible, liberal team. thank you very much. >> this coalition monday is going to stay on your back every day of the campaign because pitbull will assume if you don't rule it out, that you have something to hide. you just don't want to admit it. is that not the inevitable conclusion you are inviting? >> you are buying the conservative line here. there is nothing to hide. i am saying as clearly as i can to the canadian people, looking them in the eye, if you want to replace the harbor government, vote liberal. cannot be clearer than that. thank you very much. >> edgecomb ended right after president stephen harper commented, saying that prime minister did not take questions. he then proceeded to take a number of questions that the

liberal party will offer an alternative. many took a series of questions about what the future holds for the liberals. he talked about a coalition, and the government is accusing him of having a coalition with this man. let's hear what he has to say. madeis government's has -- this government did not respect fundamental democratic rules of the house. we saw that with the contempt of parliament. we saw that with the minister who falsified a document and only a admitted it sometime later. we saw this government not respecting election canada's rules. we saw criminal investigations carried out because of the actions -- this government is

presenting a retrograde and narrow ideology that does not reflect about is an interest of quebec. the harbor government has simply turned its back on quebec. we can see this for example in its refusal to provide compensation to the quebec government's for the harmonization of the sales tax some 19 years ago. it is to $0.2 billion, and yet they gave billions last year to british columbia, ontario, but for quebec, there is nothing. $60 million to the forestry industry, whereas bill genser given to the auto industry in ontario -- billions were given to the auto industry in ontario last year. they leave the unemployed, men and women who lost their jobs, some of them at home. there is nothing there for them because the economy has evolved. in the face of all that, mr. harper does not deserve the confidence of quebecers.

quebecers must penalize mr. harper and vote in favor of democracy. democracy is a very important tool, and the only party that can mar mr. harper from another victory -- i am inviting all the people of quebec to ensure that quebec remains strong and can speak in a loud voice and defend issues -- the interests and values of quebeckers in ottawa. any questions? >> in order to have an alternative to the harbor government, people have to work and vote for the liberals. what do you think of that? >> basically, we were able to

get a sixth consecutive victory in quebec. the men and women of quebec recognize themselves in the work we do for them. we should not be blaming the majority. the federalist parties are not offering anything to the people of quebec. i take my own responsibilities, but i certainly will not take the responsibilities of the other parties. what i want is many block mp's to be elected and we will see how canada response to that. in order to ensure that quebec is well in -- well represented and that itself is a reflected here, we need men and women who can be speak on -- who can speak on behalf of quebec. >> [unintelligible]

>> the whole the balance of power in parliament? with yourself with the liberals are the conservatives? withll you align yourselve the liberals or conservatives? >> i will look at what they have to offer quebec. the proposed a way of facing a lot of confidence by the american government [unintelligible] i am always acting in the best interest of quebec. >> are you committing to remain as leader of the block until the next election? >> winning a majority, and after

doing so, i will see in the future. [unintelligible] >> if there is a liberal or conservative majority government, you'd be there for four more years? >> absolutely. i would ask my mps to stay here for four more years. what about the campaign? i am certainly not going to make any career plans now. i am optimistic about the campaign and i think we will win. what about when there are provincial elections? well, there should be one this year, and the next one in quebec will be next year, so i certainly very much hope to be next to [unintelligible] at that time. now the conservatives believe that they have made such a great

budget that there will be little goodies for everyone. notably for the forest industry. we will talk about the little goodies for the seniors as well, because with the proposals they made, it did not even bring it seniors up to the level -- to the poverty level. we will be talking to the unemployed about the goodies that are there for them. we will be talking about all of that. >> today if there is a conservative minority parliament that comes back here at -- how would you and the other opposition party leaders remained to fight another day in the same kind of parliament after the election? >> he wanted an election and he got an election. >> the voters put him back in place. >> if they did that in quebec,

two-thirds of the ridings will be in the hands of the block. harper knew very well that he was to be defeated, otherwise he would have done something else. he spent $26 million campaign with the taxpayers' money. if he does not want an election, he was hiding that pretty well. >> statements after we heard from the prime minister after this historic vote. he was saying there is a blue door and a red door and then you heard the news that mr. harper wanted the election.

any thoughts or reactions about what we are seeing right now? >> we saw the prime minister not answer any questions because he knew the questions would be in contempt of parliament. all the questions were about the coalition, not surprisingly. they will keep coming at him until he makes it absolutely clear where he stands. in his defense, the question could be put a lot more clear. the question is very simple. if the conservatives win the most seats, do they have the right to form the first government? that is the question. you have to say yes or no to that. you cannot dodge around with all of this, that, and the other thing, you have to answer the question. everybody is trying different ways to frame the question. whatever the case, he is still not giving an answer that seems satisfactory to the

parliamentary press gallery, and you know what will be the newspaper headlines. >> this would be a monkey on his back. he answered strategically. he said if you vote for the green, is a vote for stephen harper, but he would not answer clearly on the coalition. >> fortunately, today mr. harper and the conservatives mr. golden opportunity to work together with the other parties in the house of commons to show that it is possible and they are capable of putting families first in our decision. the ndp offer a program and some initiatives, but unfortunately, mr. harper rejected our proposals to make daily life more affordable for some, with

lower taxes on heating oil with an improvement in our pension system, for seniors in particular, and retirees. and to create positions for physicians and nurses so we will not have 5 million families are individuals here in canada with no family doctor. but he rejected those proposals, and he showed that he made a choice. he made the choice to have an election rather than working with the others. critical point. an election will be taking place. we will present our policies and our team and we will fight the conservatives all across the country in order to replace them in the house of commons, and i will present myself as a candidate for the position of

prime minister. >> mr. harper demonstrated he was not willing to work with the parties in the house of commons to put families first and their needs in the first place. we made some very practical, reasonable suggestions. we said you could take the tax of home heating to make heating more affordable. we could start to create family doctors and nurses for the family practice so that 5 million canadians who don't have family medicine could actually have access to health care for their families. but sadly, mr. harper has demonstrated that he and his conservatives really have no interest in working with the other party. he made the choice, and that choice was to take to election, so now we move to that crucial point of entering into election campaigns. the new democrats will be all across the country taking on the

conservatives and showing we are the party that is actually able to defeat conservatives from coast to coast to coast. we'll be starting tomorrow night in edmonton and moving on from there. our goal is to let out a program that will put families first, as we have always done, and to defeat conservatives in this upcoming election. thank you very much. >> mr. harper was not defeated on the budget. he was defeated on a motion of contempt of parliament. but you are not discussing that. are you saying it is not important? yes, it is important, but we had a golden opportunity to create a budget that would really respond to the needs of canadians, and he did not do that. had anue that we also historic moment where the government was condemned by the house of commons for contempt of parliament, contempt of our democracy. this shows that are what is broken -- ottawa is broken.

>> does that mean that if the budget has passed it would not have voted -- that is a hypothetical question. layton, a few moments ago you said that if you vote for the green party, we will end up back with the same thing as mr. harper. what is your response to that? >> well, the last election showed that it was the ndp that can beat the conservatives and we will show that again, all across canada. the ndp is the party that can fight conservatives, that can debate with them and replace them. that is the old liberal attitude, but opposition to the

government is somewhat fractured, divided. no, we are not divided. the ndp is very much united and we will be presenting our ideas, our candidates, are policies to replace the conservatives and we will be doing that with a really energetic campaign. >> the think that -- mr. igna tieff intriguing to save him would enter into a coalition with you. what would you do if he did failed to win a mandate? >> i am not going to try to answer the question that he will not answer himself. i think that our record is very clear. we do work with other parties. i am running for prime minister. i am writing to lead the largest

-- largest party in the house of commons and to work with a mandate that canadians give me, reaching out to other parties as required and forming relationships that are appropriate in order to get results we are committing to canadians we are going to pursue for them and their families on health care, affordability, jobs, and on retirement security, the internment, and all the other key issues. that has always been our approach. >> if the reality is the voters return of parliament that does not look a lot different, do you think that you and the opera -- other opposition leaders [unintelligible] should stick around and try to work with the government? >> i intend to be bringing change to this house of commons in this election. that is the whole point of the belly of going to the people when you are facing with the government that is in transient

and will not work with the other parties. with strong campaigns and conservative writings, the eventuality spoke about will not be what we find at the end of the election. >> your putting him under a lot of pressure to be more transparent about a coalition. some commentators are suggesting he should be a lot more transparent about the exact date of your help, your treatment, the state of your prostate cancer, especially when as you say you are running to be prime minister. >> i had my stitches out yesterday. i expect to be rid of the rock -- walking assistance within a few weeks. i am not sure what are the details you want.

i could undress right here before you but i don't think that would be in the interest of canadian politics. >> the always liberal argument in the book. the democrats are the ones in a position to defeat conservative. kovach to the 2008 election and you will find it was new democrats that if the conservatives in that election -- go back to the 2008 election. we don't apologize for that. i am running for prime minister. i am running to lead a large group of new democrats in this house of commons that has shown war than any other party in this house that we are willing to work with the other parties and work with the house of commons that canadians construct to get

things done for him -- for them. >> today you are only talking about replacing conservatives. don't you want to replace liberals as well? >> we will have candidates across the country. there is not a lot of enthusiasm for mr. ignatieff. our role is to replace the harbor a government which we think has been taking country down the wrong path -- replace the carper government. -- he has taken as down the wrong path in afghanistan with -- in afghanistan with the help of the liberals. his policies have been a disaster. we are very clear that we are running against mr. harper. it turns out that he has the same practices of patronage

appointments to the senate and fund-raisers that apparently break the rules of appointing friends to keep positions and giving to the insiders in ottawa what they want, as the liberals practice for so many years. i suppose when we criticize the one, we are criticizing the other, and saying the old ways have to go. week -- we need new politics in canada. that is what the new democratic party is here to provide. >> on the gun registry, what kind of impact will that have on your campaign, because the liberals are -- >> right now he is giving his response to the historic vote. bring down the harbor government is a historic vote. we have had reaction from the prime minister who took no questions.

he gave his views but he was not very clear about whether he would form a coalition. we just heard from jack layton. he probably made the best offer of the day. he said he was going to strip down right now -- he said it was not in the interest of canadians, but that would have been the cap at the end of a very dramatic day. tomorrow, things will change dramatically. we heard from everyone, did anything standouts as we launch forward into this campaign? >> i think ignatieff has the coalition thing sitting there unanswered. he will get it tomorrow, maybe by day three or four or five, whatever it is, we will have an

answer that satisfies people. answer on the health issue has been a tough issue to deal with. there is debate over whether it should be asked, but it was a tough one. he looked pretty calm, and he had a joke on it. he handled easily with a smile. everybody laughed, and then moved on. very interesting to watch the different ways of handling the difficult questions. >> let me bring in chris hall. we want to get a last reaction. we tried to give all the leaders equal time on there. >> very quickly, i agree that jack layton managed to change the tone on the question that has been plaguing him. conservatives who mistrust --

ignatieff said liberals are the only alternative now. they think they have an opportunity to pick up seats from liberals and conservatives out west. we will see how that plays out. i was surprised, the reference to the environment, suddenly it was back on the table. it is clear he is trying to establish that he is a bonafide leader of a party that has a social confidence. >> what stood out to you? the coalition question came about five or six times in rapid said nash -- succession. >> i think he came roaring out of the gate. he was presented with that -- they must have anticipated that this was going to be one of the first couple of questions, if not the first one.

when he did not answer it and it kept coming back at him, this is really where we are seeing the difference between jack layton, and we all know that during election campaigns, some really weird stuff can happen. if you or not right there to respond to it well, it cannot derail your campaign very quickly. as peter said, this is a question that will come back to him, and quite rightly so. canadians have a right to know whether they are voting for liberals or a liberal in an alliance of some sort. >> in the last comment on what you heard from the leaders? >> not to belabor the point of a coalition, but ignatieff did not answer the question the other day when he talked about the red door and the blue door. they are going to have to come

up with a better answer than what he gave here, and that will have to come up with some better questions to get a better answer. the last two weeks of jack layton, that is basically the only question we asked him, and he managed to give an answer that satisfied us, and a position that he is now uncomfortable with. ignatieff has a bigger chance of becoming prime minister, but he is going to have to nail it down in the first couple of days. >> we have to let it go for now, after watching this all and fold in a very dramatic day. we had lots of people putting this all into perspective, and it does not stop here. we will have full coverage on all of this unfolding political drama.

peter will be there steering our coverage throughout this entire campaign. does not stop there. we will be watching it very closely. power in politics is now on six days a week. we will be added again tonight from of a plot to 7:00. we invite you to follow all the coverage. -- from 5:00 to 7:00. lots of drama. >> so stephen harbors conservative government is toppled, 156-145 is the no- confidence vote. it will be the fourth election in canada in seven years. the associated press notes and

other political development, this time in portugal. portugals political party said they want elections to form a new government there in two months, even though the protracted uncertainty could hasten distressed countries declined and force it to take a bailout. we'll tell you about some of our weekend political coverage here in just a moment. here is what is ahead tonight on c-span, beginning at 8:00. "newsweek and the daily beast present a conversation about women in the middle east, especially women who are protesting their. that is tonight at 8:00. on c-span2, a conversation about covering court proceedings and the balance between fair press and access and their court proceedings. that is at 8:00 on c-span2. >> possible gop presidential candidates haley barbour, newt gingrich, rick santorum, and

michele bachmann into one, iowa at the conservative principles conference. on sunday, our interview with rick santorum, this weekend on c-span. >> this weekend on "book tv," the discussion on john hinckley jr. spelled assassination attempt on president reagan. throughout the weekend, from the virginia festival of the book, panels on medicine and science, the vietnam war, the founding fathers and religion, and more. on a complete schedule at booktv.org. >> throughout the month of april, will feature the top winners of this year's c-span studentcam competition. nearly 1500 students submitted documentary's on the theme "

washington, d.c. through my lens." during the program, meet the students who created them. stream all the videos any time on line. >> the united nations launched a new agency last month called un women, focused on gender equality and women's empowerment and around the world. the person in charge of it is michelle bachelet, the former prime minister of chile. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. >> good evening, and welcome to roosevelt house, to this

exciting an historic event. i have a great privilege of being the president of this extraordinary institution, hunter college. it is an honor to have the former president of chile, michelle bachelet, here tonight to discuss the new program u,.n. women. when bill clinton was here of the month ago, i was able to introduce him. he came up and said thank you, madam president, i still like the sound of that. it is particularly fitting to have the under secretary general speak here at roosevelt house, where eleanor roosevelt made her first speech in a long career of women's rights. when the president asked her to lead a commission on the status of women, she accepted, saying men have to be reminded that

women exist. this house tells a story of strong women existing and thriving side-by-side. fdr was the mother imagined a beautiful home for her daughter, eleanor roosevelt. she built this house and loved it so much, she kept half of it for herself. technically one half belong to the newlyweds and the other half to sarah. sarah was not too fussy about this distinction. as eleanor said, you are never quite sure when she would appear, day or night. and you thought you had mother- in-law issues. but the unconventional arrangement was also an opportunity. eleanor had unusual freedoms, and she often walked up town to spend time with a hunter students.

in the early 1920's -- in the '20s century, higher education for women was still a progressive idea. a long and rich relationship developed between the roosevelt and a hunter community and lasted even after they left for the white house. after sarah died, the family raise the funds to purchase the house for $50,000, still one of new york's great real-estate deals. franklin donated the first thousand dollars. eleanor remained an actor friend of hunter until her death. for many years the house was a popular student activity center. when i became president in 2001, i was dismayed to discover the house in desperate need of repair. we are so thrilled to have the restoration become a reality.

the house is amazingly rich american history. this is where fdr came to recover from polio in 1921, because it had an elevator, which was somewhat unusual in those days. this is where he returned as the country's newly elected president. in 1932, broadcasting from the parlor upstairs, he introduced the nation to his economic recovery plan. this is where eleanor lead the democratic party meeting on women's issues and set out to change the role of women in politics. women, she said, were important. they stood up side the door of all important meetings and waited. elenore got women inside the door. she convinced fdr to ask frances perkins to become the first woman cabinet member in u.s. history. perkins except in the library upstairs after franklin launch a program we still know as social

security. there are a few changes that we may, and the under secretary was talking about their bureaucracy in the un. you can imagine trying to turn the back yard into this beautiful room. all the dirt had to come out by shovels, by hand. it took a lot of time and a lot of permits, but here we are, and we think it was all worth it. we have reopen roosevelt house, the whole the party public policy institute, which supports faculty research and serves as an inspiring center of student learning. we are so pleased that michelle bachelet and so many guests are at roosevelt house today to celebrate the launch of un women. secretary-general bank heat- moon helped us --ban-ki moon of us launch the program.

the changing international scene after world war one lead to a time of and security about global relations. fdr foresaw the need for international organizations to preserve world peace. in 1923, in this house, fdr crafted a plan for a society of nations to help prevent future wars. shortly after pearl harbor, he coined the term united nations, and sold it to winston churchill by barging in on him and his staff at the white house. fdr worked tirelessly during four years to convince his allies, congress, and the american people that this new organization was essential to maintaining peace in the future. though he died before the un charter was ratified, the organization continues to bear the indelible stamp of his vision. it was eleanor who helped turn that vision into reality, becoming a lifelong champion of the un and serving as a delegate to the general assembly.

she helped draft the universal declaration of human rights. michelle bachelet embodies the values of franklin and eleanor roosevelt. we know that would be deeply gratified to have such an accomplished and influential 21st century renaissance woman speak in their home about one of today's most vital issues. she decided early on that nothing would prevent her success, even torture, imprisonment, an exile could not keep her from becoming a pediatrician. as our interest in politics group, she skated her studies and became a renowned expert in military strategy. she served as minister of defense before making history in 2006 when she was elected the first woman president of chile,

the first, and to get there on her own, not through marriage or otherwise. she is a role model for women everywhere. one of the young women inspired to cast a vote for michelle bachelet is with us today. she is a senior at hunter college. last semester -- she hopes to follow and michelle back to let's footsteps. -- michelle bachelet's footsteps. [applause] i would also like to recognize another very special hunter student, from a generation that pave the way for the women of today. she made sure her grandson was

named joshua hunter, making it no surprise that joshua followed in her footsteps and graduated from hunter college this past january. it is her generosity that has made today's events possible. please stand while we thank you for the gifts of this lecture and everything you do for hunter. [applause] it is a great honor for me to invite michelle bachelet to this podium. how proud we are that she will be joined in a conversation by a professor of political science robert jenkins. he was the lead author of a report to the un security council that was instrumental in the creation of un women. thank you professor jenkins for your important work. please join me in welcoming a true international hero, u.n.

undersecretary michelle bachelet. [applause] >> thank you for such a warm welcome in such warm remarks, and good afternoon to everybody. is a real honor to have been invited by hunter college to deliver this very special lecture for 2011. it is a particular pleasure to address you here in the home of one of the 20 centuries great campaigners for human rights, one of the leaders in shaping the universal declaration of human rights. let me focus today on eleanor, because overworked helped build a foundation of international

human rights, regardless of race, creed, or sex. in the questions, you can ask me about anything you want. the topic that eleanor roosevelt had particularly strong political convictions. she insisted passionately that women should seek and be granted the opportunity to share in the works and construction as they did in war and resistance. it would take nearly half a century for the security council to translate her insight into in

-- into international law. the council passed resolutions 1325, and this landmark decision recognize that women's experience of war was different from men's. second, that the nation's women were an untapped resource for building peace. the resolution called on all actors, national and international, to fully involve women into resolving an recovering from conflict and to ensure that all efforts are consistent with principles of gender equality. the resolution articulated precisely the objectives that you and women still pursue -- un women still pursue, to empower women and promote gender equality. this is also reflected in our

official name, which is very long to remember, that i will remind you. the real name is united nations entity for gender equality and empowerment of women. it is reflected in u.n. women. we will seek to influence decision making at the highest level of u.n. policy-making through an organization whose sole mandate is to facilitate women's realization of their human rights. u.n. women will work in the field where women's life is lived, we will work to make government more responsible and

accountable to women. we will support women's economic engagement for initiatives that address formal and informal barriers to expand market access. we will advise on how to make national law consistently -- relating to women's rights. every day we see how important it is. i suppose that all of you heard that six women were shot dead peacefully demonstrating for democracy in cote d-ivore. ladies and gentlemen, now like to share with you how u.n. women will play this role, working together with all our partners, national and international, public and private, women and men.

before looking forward, we must see where we stand, and we must ask ourselves -- lazarus celebrated 10 years of resolution 1325, so i can say that more than a decade since its passage, how has it called for the engagement of women in the work of peace? the response has been at best mixed. on the one hand, the resolution addressed women as victims of systematic and widespread sexual violence, have in recent years been -- we could rejigger resolution in 1960 broke new ground that there could be no

impunity for those who command, condoned, or commit such crimes, and by a responding to sexual violence perpetrated during after -- during and after conflict. the un has begun a long journey from an exclusive focus on issues to a protective response. this means recognizing the need for customized security measures to prevent mass across the crimes against women. there will -- their was diplomats last year of a special representative of the secretary- general on sexual violence and conflict, with whom i work closely. an example of our joint work is our engagement with the department peacekeeping

operations to develop scenario based training material for peacekeepers on how to protect women in conflict resolution from high levels of sexual violence. the training is designed to route -- produce intelligence to generate reliable warnings of security threats against women and encourage peacekeepers to use the full range of actions available to them in defense of communities threatened with sexual violence. it is a powerful example of the shift in thinking about the protection of civilians that is required when recognize sexual violence as a tactic of warfare. an indicator of greater alacrity and protection of women is the recent conviction of nine government soldiers, including the commanding colonel up mass rapes committed on new year's day this year in eastern,

though. so these are important achievements in a jeep in eastern -- in eastern congo. the provisions emphasize it williams wrote -- women's roles as agents of change and a very different picture emerges. when it comes to promoting women's engagement in peace and security, the international community has performed poorly, i would say. to many doors have remained closed. lately -- we still lack initiatives that would make changes on the impact of women's roles in peace and recovery. the hard fact, and i would use the words that eleanor

roosevelt used, it is still overwhelmingly carried out by men. we research 24 ps, insistence the mid-1990s, and women average less than 8% of the delegations. a similar pattern holds if we look at what kinds of experts are supplied. very rarely have mediation support teams insured women's participation. let us not forget that to this day, no woman has been appointed a chief mediator of un manage peace process. let me say that it is hard to believe that the lack of women at the highest level of mediation does not account for

the near invisibility of gender issues in peace agreements. the study of 585 peace agreements concluded between 190 it is between 1990 and 2010, we found that just 16% of all of them contain any reference to women at all. just 3% of these peace accords contain a reference to sexual or gender based violence. in just six ceasefire agreements ever has sexual violence been identified as a cease-fire violation. in two important cases in the paul and said van -- in new paul and sedan -- nepal and sudan.

it has not become standard practice, and this is an institutional failure of the highest order. there is a litany of broken promises concerning women's engagement. we find that employment creation programs this proportionally allocate work opportunities to men. women have constituted a% of such workers. despite u.n. guidelines, and gender parity in employment programs which can provide women and independent income, at

least temporarily, and does change social and political policy. the international community supports the political representation in pose conflict situations has been similarly underwhelming. there has been inconsistent support in increasing women in elected bodies. this is despite evidence that in the war aftermath, it is the fastest means of bringing women's parliamentarians representation to the point of 30%, the target set by the beijing platform in 1995. our research has found that 34%

of elected representatives were women as opposed to 12% of parliamentarians. the way we think of how women have been progressing in terms of equality, the political aspect is a slower one. in the world, only 19% of parliamentarians are women. i think in the u.s. is 16%, if i am not wrong. so we have a long way to go. out of 182 heads of state, only 19 are women. that is a global average.

only 27 countries in the world have achieved over 30% of laurell corp. -- of women as parliamentarians. in spite of increased awareness of the value of quotas, the pace of international action has been glacial. much more could be said about missed opportunities for women's engagement in the world of peace. rather than looking for, let us focus on the way ahead. what i see on the road are many opportunities for women's and power meant waiting to be seized. underlying the opportunities is the consensus built around the issues of women, war, and peace. the secretary general has appointed an unprecedented number of women to senior positions of that headquarters and in the field, with a number of women serving as special

representatives and the number continues to grow. nowhere has the commitment in better reflected than in the 2010 report on women's participation in peace building. the report contains a comprehensive action plan for general response to which the entire u.s. system has pledged its support. the action plan consists of a clear commitment made by the secretary general on behalf of the united nations. i will not go into all the details, but let me include some of them. a system for insuring women's access to planning processes, a requirement that at least 15% of un expenditures in pose conflict situations be based on

women's empowerment and gender equality. consider that current allocation for women's empowerment is about 5% oppose conflict spending. mechanisms for providing host conflict state building initiatives for civil service reform, and institutional changes to advance women's in power meant for economic recovery and rule of law intervention. this action plan was submitted to the security council last autumn just before i took up my post. this permitted me from my earliest date in new york to focus on figuring out how to advance -- how to make things in warfor women's role

and its aftermath. there is a newly formed partnership with the peace building support office. i would like to recognize the leadership in the process. the peace building commission has lately expanded the number of post conflict processes adding liberia and in guinea. the lessons we can draw from a number of countries -- in so many countries, even though women are instrumental in supporting peace process is, they are asked to wait when it comes to addressing women's

urgent concerns. those include justice and reparations for war crimes against women, but also includes special measures to ensure women can participate in public governance. women are also told that there are special concerns to be addressed when stability is achieved, but delay has consequences for peace. in late 2009, a political crisis unfolded in guinea. the international community reacted with unusual speed to report human-rights abuses. more than 100 women had reportedly been raped by armed personnel at an opposition rally that also left over 100 people dead. graphic videos taken on cell phones lent credence to the

challenges. an international commission of inquiry was quickly put in place by the secretary general. it sent a message to all concerned that women's rights will be central from the outset. this in turn meant that women would be included in the political discussion. by the international community reaction, this is an example of how early engagement can have payoffs down the line, particularly for women's political effectiveness who seek to improve their economic standing and their legal status.

early engagement, as in the case of guinea and other countries, show it is never too late to involve women. it is never too soon to hear their voices, and we cannot afford to exclude them. in talking to a friend, i asked her, how are things in south africa under mandela? she claimed that they were still discriminated. i will use her words, because they were women, black and workers. they had a trifecta of issues. they went to mr. mandela to ask for their rights. now is our moment.

he said he was too old. they should speak to younger people. they said, we fought like you. we were in jail like you. we're not going back to this system. he was so convinced he supported them. they participated in the building of a new democracy and a more just country. they could have been developing an important -- they have performance in a great way. today, when we speak on gender equality and women's empowerment, we look at things like the economic crisis. i want to reaffirm that it is

never too early to involve women and it is never too late to hear their voices, but we really cannot avoid -- cannot afford delays on women's equality and empowerment. the rev. martin luther king was a champion for human rights. he said it is always the right time to do the right thing, and yes, it is always the right time to fight for women's rights. ladies and gentlemen, we need to do much more. we have urgent priorities to emphasize women's peace leadership. we must be positioned to respond rapidly when called.

we also some time, in some countries, women are not so well organized, and they need support. we also need to respond rapidly to calls for support from women who demand their rights. it is among my highest priorities to strengthen that base. gender inequality exists in one form or another everywhere. i just sent the white house a report. there are many opportunities of women leading in the u.s., but there are still disparities' their -- disparities there,

problems that we need to address. there are agencies that continue working with women in development. unicef will continue working with girls. another organization will continue working on sexual rights and women's health. others will work with women and girls living with hiv/aids, and so on. we will not be everywhere, but we will be where we are most needed and can really make a difference. in the coming months, we will be in the countries and regions that most require our support, including those afflicted by conflict. in some cases, women's rights have been severely damaged. in others, they have lost basic functional capacity.

a primary purpose of the women's field presence will be to support the effort to create a political voice and institutional capacity of women's organizations. we will work to enhance women's engagement in crisis and conflict situation. in response to a council request, the u.n. is already developing a rapid deployment team to strengthen systems and to combat conflict-related sexual violence. we need to improve capacity to address women's protection. we focus on supporting women's

engagement in the public agenda and decision making. the policy i am proposing will consist of experts ready to work with local women to facilitate their involvement in any and all official processes. new departments and agencies are working to realize the commitment to women's participation. rapidly deployable interdisciplinary teams can help bridge the divide. they can assist women's associations to organize themselves in ways that will leverage their voice and sustained participation. we will act as a force multiplier for a women's movement that has seen its ranks decimated by conflict. let me be clear. what we're talking about here is

not only support for women's engagement in mediation and conflict resolution, but also for the direct involvement on an ongoing basis of women and gender equality specialists in all justice institutions. this will create global structures that can be sustained over time, and the development of legal and technical capacity. we're working on a government -- [unintelligible] finally, the women's rights movement needs our support while conflict continues to rage. sometimes, crisis and conflict force women into conventional roles -- into new, unconventional roles. we're witnessing this in the

arab region right now. this can dissipate quickly as members of women's groups return to their domestic roles. this is what happened a little bit in my own country. women stood up and led the democratization struggle. everywhere, women were marching, demonstrating. everybody could be against them. the police were against them. but they stayed every day so that nobody would forget the people who had disappeared. but, at the moment of transition however, women leaders were a little bit sidelined. it took a long time for some of

us to climb up through the male- dominated hierarchy. we must engage with women at the grassroots and support women's organizational development long before conflicts and. -- conflicts anend. the cost of setting up accounting and reporting systems, for instance, can be prohibitive. one of the issues ice on my own experience, because donors, or in my case as president, we were using fiscal money so we had to

be accountable. we had so many papers we had to fill with so many strange things. this was a very complicated issue. we need to find more simplified way is -- a more simplified way, so the people can get the money they need. i would try to find how we deal with simple accountability. in the conflict context -- i mentioned that in a grassroots organization [unintelligible] in a conflict context, the problems are compounded by the massive challenges of coping with crisis. how can we expect women to be ready to seize the opportunity for engaging in peace talks,

constitutional reforms, a democratic transition, if they're not organized? how can women realistically defend other women without debating women's interests and finding effective means of representation? this cannot be accomplished overnight. yuen women has supported women in this fiscal -- un women has supported women in this difficult situation in haiti. an essential feature of this model is focused on financing, including developing capacities for accounting, implementation, and consistency of reach. there is potential for scaling up when there is a need. part of this is a sound investment.

i've included funding to women's organizations as a key indicator in the progress of a women's peace. this is one of the indicators we will track as a means of building accountability and international commitments for women's protection and representation in conflict. we have given women the task of monitoring and reporting on indicators in the progress. i have mentioned some key initiatives we have taken to ensure women are living and performing conflict resolution and recovery. an example of how this initiative can generate a change to women's rights can be seen among survivors of human rights abuses committed during or after conflicts. they need the right to obtain

redress. preparations have been uneven and underfunded. have been uneven and underfunded. this partly reflects legal bias, including property ownership and laws that discriminate against women. we of different organizations working with windows -- with with those -- with widows. because of these complex, many men have died leaving lots of widows with young kids, and they have no power. power is and in very poor and part of the people who are struggling there. -- is a very important part of the people who are struggling there.

widows, at the beginning were all dispersed. they started organizing themselves, collecting data, and now, they're receiving some benefits. they have pass some laws. they have not finished yet all of their work, but they're still doing a lot. that is an example of how women can be organized and supported so that they can have a voice and be heard. even when women are included in

peace talks, they're often excluded from designing justice transitions. we need a more gender-responsive approach to repairing the damage caused by conflict. we need to translate women's concerns into lasting institutional reforms and retain women's participation. on the topic of preparation, women's lives cannot be repaired through the legal -- reparation, women's lives cannot be repaired to the legal process alone. but reparation is also about empowerment.

reparation includes not just compensation, but empowerment. sometimes reparations are so needed, both to communities and to individuals. reparation can also involves something that is very important. if we do not learn from history we are condemned to repeat it. so reparation is a public acknowledgement of abuses suffered. if well-designed, they can break the silence and assist the survivors of sexual violence.

in eastern kondo, a woman runs a shelter for rape survivors -- a woman runs a shelter for rape survivors. she said to an audience, i do not want money. all i want is for you to not see rape as my problem, but as our problem. this is an essential issue of reparations and acknowledgement. approach tosponsive reproach reparation is an approach to national rebuilding. attention to women's rights

cannot be an afterthought if positive results are to be achieved. before the close, i cannot help asking, how [unintelligible] they would not have welcomed it. not now. not in 2011. not this late. six and a half decades after declaring the universal equality of all people, that it would still be thought necessary to create a specialized agency for half of them.

she would have hoped to see more before now. formal equality is not the same as in joining real equality. in 1934, eleanor roosevelt said, 13 years since women's suffrage have now gone by, and many people are asking, what have the women done with the vote? i often wonder why no one asks the men the same question.

[unintelligible] i say the same thing. eleanor roosevelt continued by saying, but it is a high compliment to women that we are expected to bring about some marked change in political conditions. it is women themselves working together with men who in the and will bring about change in their own condition. when one woman gets involved in politics, she will change. when many women get involved in politics, policy will change. women now have a steadfast,

committed partner. thank you very much. [applause] >> hello. i teach political science here at hunter college. we are thrilled to have our guest speak to us today. i know there are thousands of questions troubling everyone's mind, but i get the first chance, fortunately, to ask a few things, and then we will open it up. we have c-span with us this evening, so that is a plus as well. i just want to start by asking you, in light of the talk he

gave just now, and as someone who was caught up in the civil war in your own country, whether you could speak to have your own personal experience affects how you address some of the issues of war and peace that you described. you are unique in our experience as being someone who was a victim of conflict to some degree, a victim of human rights abuses, but also someone who has helped to rebuild a new government. have your own experiences affected your approach to these issues? >> as i mentioned in my remarks, when we were struggling for democracy, our essential thing was, we had one enemy that was a dictatorship and we needed a democracy.it

at that time, gender was not a discussion, but women's organizations were fighters for democracy. there was a huge movement of women for democracy. you could see people from many different perspectives sitting together and trying to find out ways to produce different strategies so we could get into position. these issues were not the principal ones. it was not that clear, we never would say, what we had to do first in a transition time, but of course i started as minister of gender affairs. it was the least relevant

minister at that time, with a modest budget. also, because we have learned now, women's issues cannot be the issues of the gender affairs minister, they have to be across the spectrum. we also had to deal with the issue of human rights. we wanted to organize for a high-level commission and hear the voices of people who had been human rights victims. we develop special laws of reparations for widows, for children, for children of

political prisoners or the disappeared, because we understood two things. first, it was important to understand the truth, to break the silence. it was a very difficult moment. pena shea was still the commander in chief. -- pinochet was still the commander-in-chief. we had a vote that said that pinochet could not stay for eight more years, but there were no elections. one of the conditions was that he could stay commander in chief. that led to a lot of tension, as you could imagine. but we wanted the truth to be known.

and the trip was not easy to be known because so many people -- truth was not easy to be known warmuse so many people we misere missing. in terms of giving the reparation and the knowledge of what has happened in our country, on the other hand, we had to try to avoid a political unrest, and on the other hand, we tried to reform -- to respond to a very important problem. even the chile was known for wonderful economic performance, of 47% of the population lived in economic poverty. with a come up with politics in a democratic way.

in parliament, we had people from all different areas having to sit together and work together because they were elected by the people. second, we have the urgent social problems. we needed to deal with poverty, with education, the health system and so on. they were in very weak conditions. we also needed to take many people out of poverty, but also, as i mentioned, to deal with human rights issues. so, i think our position was a very good model for chile. i do not believe the one size fits all. we reform the constitution and so on. at the end, we have a start of a material democracy that will be able to elect a president,

something that was unthinkable a few years ago. i could be minister of defense. i believe we did it in a way that we could really put a peaceful transition, take charge of all the problems that society had, and try to do something very important. we wanted to have two parts of society look at themselves, especially one part, that saw the other as enemies. it is natural to have political adversity. you have one party, he have another. you do not agree, you have a diversity, but you'd never see

yourself as enemies. that weakens democracy. democracy is much more than electing people. it is being able to discuss with others, to get into agreement, or to deal and a good way with disagreements. i think in chile we learned a lesson. not always. sometimes in politics there are some very difficult moments. people sometimes forget our history. that is why we have always said, the main message that i wanted to send with the human rights museum is that we cannot change the past. we need to understand what happened, but the future depends on us, and we have to take care

of democracy every day, because we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. >> thank you very much. i wanted to ask you about another set of cases of transitions better taking place. this opens up the discussion about technical cases of conflict in post-conflict situations, which means something very specific in the un context. if you think about transitions from war to peace and transitions from authoritarian to democratic rule, we have to think today about north africa and the middle east. concretely, what can you and women do to ensure that you and women are a part of those transitions, part of the street protests, and are not filtered out once the discussions move to committee rooms. i think it is really helpful for people to have a sense of what

sort of engagement as possible. -- is possible. >> as you mentioned, the un works with national partners and national governments and organizations. not only women's organizations, all organizations. usually with the national government, it is man-driven. there are, in those countries, a lot of women, a lot of organizations, that have been doing a lot of things in the universities, of the civil societies. what we can do is strengthen capacity to help them if they need. for example, in having or producing a lot of information or, for example, comparing constitution's from many

democracies in the world. we can help and provide them, if they do not have it, with tools that will permit them, that when their voices are heard, they can have all the necessary tools to convince the ones in charge of those reforms that this is a specific opportunity. nobody can lose. women can really express that democracy that is shaping these countries should take into consideration how this new constitution will include women's rights, gender equality and women's and power meant. empowerment. we're trying to produce all the necessary data, information, and support for women's organizations, and i think they also need to identify what can

help them. >> one thing i wanted to raise was, i was involved last year in working on the secretary general's report on women's participation that you spoke about in your election -- in your lecture. one of the things i came up frequently was the issue of, why is it -- we would hear this mainly from developing countries states, mainly african states -- why is it that when a country's succumbs to war and conflict, and is most honorable, and has leased bargaining power, why is that -- most vulnerable, and has the least bargaining power, why is that when women's voices become loudest and a

fight for equal treatment. why, only when we are weak, do we have an externality imposed feminist agenda put on us? i wonder how you counter that charge. what if your organization takes a strong stand in countries that are not week due to being in post-conflict states, countries like the united states or saudi arabia. can you deal with some of the hard cases so as to honor yourself when it comes time to dealing with post-transition cases and saying, we do not discriminate on the basis of the member states concerned. we advocate for women's rights whenever and wherever possible. >> we have a mandate.

we had a very important discussion before this was approved. we do have other tasks. we want to empower women everywhere, specifically politically, because there we were -- there we are having slower progress. and economically. another important issue is ending violence against women. that is everywhere. it is in this country. this country spends $5.4 billion a year on health care, mental health care. in canada, we also know how much

it costs. in other countries, they do not measure how it costs, but it is a worldwide issue. yesterday, we had a meeting with fenland -- finland about ending violence against women. we also asked for participation from jamaica and nepal. everybody agreed that this is a universal issue. we will be advocating everywhere, not only in a more vulnerable countries. if you think that the developed world, we have a lot of problems. women can maybe have more opportunities, but this report

from the white house shows that the opportunities and salaries are different. asian, a caucasian, afro american and latinas, it is completely different. the opportunity disparities were incredible. if you think and the developed world, for example, my current world -- if you think in the developed world, for example, might issues -- my grant --

migrant workers, this is an issue that has to be dealt with. but of course, our main help has to be in the most venerable countries where women are powerless and where the government makes it not possible to advance much faster. it is not an issue of discrimination against some countries. on the contrary -- and of course, we will be going and working hard, but one important issue for the un is that governments will agree on that, but most of the government [unintelligible] so, the framework is there, and they need help from us. i hope we will have much more

funds, because then we will be able to help much more the women of the world. >> i want to open it up for questions. i think we have a microphone person here. please make sure that you identify your organization before asking your question. i will ask our first questioner to put forth her question. this is a hunter college student. stand up if you would not mind. >> thank you for coming in for your wonderful speech. my question is something you alluded to earlier. it is about funding. how do you find your initiatives in the coming years -- fund in our initiatives in the coming years? do you have an estimated annual

budget? >> the question is, where is the money to do all of the good things that were set forth in a lecture, and what sort of response did you facing your early round of seeking downers'? >> -- in your early rounds of seeking donors? >> specifically, a country like mine, usually the money comes from the fiscal state. you can work with the private sector to get some money. yuen women has an approved budget of 500 mill -- un women has an approved budget of $500 million. i believe that was not enough

and that we need at least $1 billion. i said, ok good, $500 million. but when i came here, i learned how it is. we do not have $500 million. we have like one-third of it. second, it is only 1.4% of the budget. all the rest is from voluntary contributions. i did not know this was the eality for all yueun organizations. everything is voluntary contributions.

can you do your work without money? we put it together with high expectations. hopes are high. high expectations. so, we need to fund raise, and in order to fund raise, we need to have very strong data to show the reality and the need. we need to work with donors, and we are working with donors to collect and give the money in the right timing condition. we are approaching the private sector and non-traditional donors.

even though our donors are in bad shape because of the economic crisis, we still -- they still respect our commitments. spain is a good example. norway is another good example. they are the top donors. then come a lot of other countries, but those two are very high up on the list. with all this excitement, all this commitment, we still understand we cannot expect only from traditional donors. we will be working with private sector come up with women's organizations. -- private sector, with women's organizations. i do not know we will get all

the money we want. but with the money we have, we need to work in a good way to improve our effectiveness and efficiency. we also need to incentivize the rest of the un system to spend more on women. that is why i mentioned, and the revolution -- resolution states, that we will be held accountable. we have to see more progress with women. you can imagine that in africa [unintelligible] they own only 2% of the land. when you see how much money goes

to women, it is like to% too. we can improve that. we can direct more towards women. i am really looking forward to a push for a huge project from norway. there we have women who know how to produce fantastically, but they do not have water supplies. or they do not have storage capacity. many have to go to market and you cannot negotiate good prices. they need technical assistance to add value to the product. not only grow at amata, but can it, make tomato sauce, whatever -- grow a tomato, but can it, make tomato sauce, whatever.

there's a special fund from the institution of the development of agriculture. how can we think big? we're doing great things, but still, i am sure that many governments and many women's organizations will be so happy that we can work together. >> i want to pick up on one thing you said, which is that you've been welcome heartily by member states and others, but you're not sure the money will be coming through. you also said there is a discrepancy between what member states do in the un, and what they do in their foreign policy. a foreign policy is not necessarily the same as a yuen

policy -- un policy, but one reason it makes a difference is that we then point the finger at a you and for not -- at the un for not negotiating better gender equality policies. is there a way for you in your position now, and the respect your held in by other world leaders come to go directly to member states and those engaged in contact groups and other groups, and engage in mediation to say, you speak a good game in new york at the security council, what about pushing behind the scenes for more women at the table, more mediators, more negotiators? is that something that can be done, or are your hands tied in your new role? >> we can do all of that, and we

have done a lot of that. but talking about mediators, we have to be fair. when i came into office, they told us we did not have enough women mediators. we will be strengthening women's skills and capacity to be mediators, but to be fair, that is not enough. the parties have to accept the mediator's. you cannot impose them. the mediator has to be somebody who represents something for the people in the negotiation. you have to be somebody that is respected and seen as a leader. you cannot put any man or any woman -- it is not an issue of women -- i mean, you have to have somebody who means something to the people.

it is political capital. that is probably one of the main problems with women mediators. we can have great women, extraordinary women, but you cannot -- i mean, it could be a marvelous woman in europe. you cannot put her in a peace talk in the arab world. maybe it doesn't mean anything to them. you cannot impose. that is a challenge. and we have great women everywhere, but the challenge is to identify the women who are leaders. i think mediation, you can always learn the skills. the essential issue is to identify women leaders and to work to develop more leadership in women. >> i think we have some

questions here in the second row. many questions. we will start here and work our way is back. >> cross is for your talk in your presentation -- thank you for your talk and your presentation. i am a professor of anthropology in brazil. i am also the coordinator of the national observatory of domestic violence in brazil. water the plants -- what are the plans to combat violence against women?

there is an area of violence against women that i do not see covered, which is how urban violence affects women. they say brazil is not a conflict zone, and i argue, you do not know what it is like to live in a big city. it is a conflict is down. -- conflict is done. we have to look and see how women are a fact -- conflict zone. we have to look and see how women are affected. >> i have to say that if a

country like brazil has a woman president, many more women will have opportunities in the world. there will be not only opportunities in brazil, but in the rest of the world. women are so often absent from the big discussions. in the financial crisis, did you ever see something about how the crisis was impacting the women? one organization really stated that the financial crisis -- conflict impacts differently

women and men, and the financial crisis also did that. it is possible to introduce a line saying that it impacts differently. next year, i hope we can have some proposal and that direction. on the other hand, you asked about -- we have a un trust fund for ending violence against women. we are incorporating more men and boys in the campaign because this is not a women's issue, it is the whole society, and we need the counterpart to speak to the others.

we need good ways of solving problems, not through violence. we need to neutralize what we see an and abusing home. we're working a lot and fund- raising. we have a goal of $100 million per year. in my meeting with the latin american caribbean group, this was mentioned. in some countries, a lack of security is not seen as a country in crisis. but in guatemala, the of big problems with organized crime, drug trafficking, big problem. the united nations is organizing

ourselves in a different way to tackle this problem. this is not only a violation of human rights, but no democracy can survive in a good way, and you cannot make effective your rights if you cannot be out of your home at 5:00 in the afternoon. it happens in many cases where there is terror in the streets and so on. we are going to deal with that. we understand the security is much more, not solely for women, also for men, the specifically for women. we are aware of that, and the united nations will be making some decisions very shortly. i think we will be able to respond in a much better way. >> i would like to pose a

question connected with ratification of the civil convention. do you plan to encourage ratification by the united states, and how are you planning to connect the high commission of human rights with respect to implementation of women's human rights and ending discrimination against women? >> we have worked with that commission in establishing the commission and in all areas, trying to identify who is going to do what and when.

we are very involved in the human rights situation. we of many other issues also. we went to provide information and all of the data. we seek of the data they have for monitoring, and making sure that [unintelligible] is being implemented. many times members states sign a lot of resolutions. many countries have lots of laws, but there is a gap. we're working on how we can help

them in terms of filling this gap so they can implement. some money countries will sign everything, whenever you can imagine, and nothing happens. it is not only a timing issue that is important. an issueissue -- it is of the conquest. we will be focusing on how important it is to ratify conventions. we're looking to insure the underlying quality. i hope it will be a reality soon.

there was a lot of difference in the constituencies for u.s. women. the u.s. organizations are a very strong part of the campaign. we can do our part. you have to do your job. parliamentarians would like to be reelected. it is the constituencies that have to convince them. i will be working hard on women's rights because it is human rights. that is not enough of an argument. i will be working on producing data, hopefully region by region and sunday country by country -- and sunday -- someday, country by country.

you have to build a strong economic, social, and political case. this is in the framework that it is human rights. when we say it is human rights, that does not work many times. i will do my part. but i need for society to do their part. it is not only because of funding. people who are in decision making positions need to know what their constituents think about this. they need to feel is important for them. that is one thing they take into consideration before passing a law or voting against it. we will do our part. alone, we will not succeed.

we need you. >> everyone has their marching orders. i have been told we have time for one last questions. the lady in the second to the last row. >> my name is grace ann. i am here with the hunter college model u.n. i am a student of political science and a female. i would like to know from your personal experience if you feel the voice of a woman is as loud and as listened to as a man's in international policy making or if old statements are still preventing women from being as strong of a voice on the floor. >> i have to correct you. i am not a diplomat. [laughter] maybe i would have changed a lot of things if i were. it depends. if you are the president, i can

tell you that they hear your voice. if you are in a country like mine, the international policy is the responsibility of the president and not the congress. in this country, it is not. i will tell you if it is not easy. we started the first cabinet when i was minister. every time we spoke, our male colleagues acted like it was not interesting when we were talking. that is until they got to know us very well. they got to see that we were very good. then they respected us. then they took us into consideration. you see? in countries where there are a lot of prejudices or disparities, sometimes women's voices are not heard.

the only suggestion is to know exactly what you want, exactly what is needed. be very well prepared to. never give up. i always say that i had in myself all the possible things. i was a woman, the first female minister. i was divorced. i was not catholic and i was a socialist. can you imagine something worse? [laughter] i told that to the commander in chief during our first meeting. i told him i know he had a lot of doubts because there was this and this book that we would work perfectly.

i was very well prepared. i had experience as minister. i learned in my home values and how to make decisions. my father was a general and my mother was very strong-willed. let me give you another example. i was in my last two years as governor with the economic crisis. we had a wonderful moment of high corporate enterprise. my colleagues were pushing that i should show everything. my minister of finance told me he had this experience in the past between the first and

second more -- war. we produce a lot, but suddenly it was too expensive. with the technology, they invented something to replace our main asset. we lost everything. we thought copper is very important, but let's not spend everything in the budget. let's keep some of this money in special funds like the norwegian once -- ones. we were going to do a lot of reform and so on. we would have the money. we would be able to -- what is the word in english? we would be able to change the trend of the economy to the

trend of the social debt. we had the fund to continue to give the benefits. when i made the decision, if you can imagine. everybody was teasing me and against me. my approval rating went down and down. i was taunted. everybody said to use the money to compensate. i said we needed to have the money in case. i did not know that was going to happen. it happened that the crisis came. when the crisis came, it affected to lay -- chile because of the export-orientation of the economy. we had a terrible problem.

had to do.t we've remitted diagnosis of the problem. we knew the areas affected. -- we made a diagnosis of the problem. we knew the areas affected. unemployment was rising. i went to every region of the country trying to boost the economy, giving the people cash transfers to boost demand. we did a lot of things. it was important that i knew what i had to do and that i had money to do it. i am telling you this not because i am crazy and forgot your question -- [laughter] -- it is because the important thing is to know the problem and solution to the problem and to maintain your position. i would have been much more popular.

i did not cut any benefits. because i had the money, and. all of the benefits of the country. -- i am proved all the benefits of the country. we made tough decisions when it was necessary. then we could do a stimulus plan. ours was not with the banks. in the 1980's, we had the terrible financial crisis. in that time, we introduced the idea of reducing risk. we did not have a huge financial impact in this last crisis. only those who had money in the banks. even though it is not easy, do not give up. be prepared. know what has to be done.

you will then be respected and recognized. you may fall, but it does not matter. you will be recognized. [applause] >> it is a great honor. we wish you the best. we will heed your call. we will help. we wish you success in this extraordinarily important effort. [applause] >> i ended up with 85% approval. [laughter] [applause] when i decided not to use all the money, and was 30%. i do not think you can govern

trying to have approval. you have to make the good choices and decisions. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house and senate are out this week. the political action was north of the border in canada this week. opposition parties today toppled prime minister of harper's government in a no- confidence vote. the opposition parties held the conservative government in contempt of parliament today for failing to disclose the full financial details of proposed legislation, corporate tax cuts, and plans to purchase of fighter jets. the vote will probably force an election on may 2. he was 156-145. we will show you the vote and reaction from prime minister harper and comments from

opposition leaders. that will be coming up at 6:30 eastern. >> tonight, female writers and activists from the middle east discuss civil unrest in their countries. you will hear perspectives from women grappling with freedom as they take a role in changing political systems in egypt, iraq, iran, and saudi arabia. >> iran is really bad for everyone. this is one side of the coin. saudi arabia it is the other side of the queen. it is very dark. our stories have never been heard. we're very strong in terms of will. we support the west with the oil. it is the homeland of islam. >> what the summit from new york city tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> a conversation among

journalists, judges and lawyers about covering court proceedings and the balance between the airport access and their proceedings. that is tonight on c-span2. >> charles blow expresses his opinions using charts and graphs. >> i do not the site and will talk about a subject and then go look for data. i search for data first and see if it is something interesting and if it agrees with an opinion i have. it may surprise me or my readers. >> at the end of it to-day meeting of european leaders, nicholas sarkozy to questions on several topics, including the political unrest and violence in libya. he also talked about nuclear

power and the economic situation in portugal. from brussels, this is 25 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, may i suggest that we have a relatively short press conference given the fact that i give a conference last night. i will take three or four questions. a will not do any introductions so we can go straight into your questions. [laughter] if that is a problem for you, i can do things differently. otherwise, i await your questions. thank you. >> [unintelligible] >> talking about serious, you said it was unacceptable for a democratic country -- i would like to know whether this applies equally to members of nato such as albania.

on january 21, four demonstrators were shot down. i would like to know if the same principle applies for syria and albania. the question is, is a human life worth less in albania and then syria? of course not. every human life counts. you yourself have termed the arab revolutions as revolts. that is spelled out by principals also done by my foreign secretary on the subject. if the same were to apply in albania, i would have to say things the same.

>> what is your analysis on the council of the economic and political situation in portugal? the council has spent the prime minister for his courage. things have changed. from what was understood, all political parties in portugal subscribe to the principles and objectives set by year. the political struggle led to the rejection of the austerity plan. according to what we're being

told, elections will be held in the next two months. our confidence in portugal is total. we are assured that all political parties in portugal are aware of the need to make efforts to improve the competitiveness of the portuguese economy and reduce the portuguese deficit. it has not changed our analysis of the situation. all the mechanisms are now set up. there has been a total agreement. we have economic governance. other countries have said they wish to agree. europe has done what it needed to do. that is a satisfying situation we have economic governance. we have a long-lasting institution for helping out

countries. >> can you say that you have true economic governance? is there still progress to be achieved? >> to be dispelled, i do not believe so. as i understood the situation a year ago, we have made phenomenal progress. we have been able to overcome all prices fundamentally -- of crises fundamentally. the government is now in place. 17 heads of government have taken the necessary measures to combat speculations and set up solidarities agreed to. everyone has agreed to this. i do not see what we could do more. that does not mean that in a few months' time, we will not have other alternatives up our sleeve

or other ideas to strengthen our economic mechanisms. when you think of what france was asking for a year ago and what we have achieved today, i think we can say that we have met our objectives. >> mr. president, after the terrible nuclear disaster in japan, did you discuss the issue during the european council meeting with stress tests been mentioned? what sort of stress tests and fallout might there be for the power plants that failed? >> we talked about this and that today. it is a matter of responsibility. what happened in japan is of interest to the entire world. what happened in japan has nothing to do with what happened in chernobyl. it was an earthquake that raided nine on the richter scale, the highest ever known by japan.

the nuclear power plant was built in 1970. it resisted the earthquake. the problem was the installations above water level were drowned by a 12-meter wave. that put a halt to all of the cooling systems. the problem in japan is how to deal with tsunamis. the problem would not apply to land locked countries or countries that have never had to experience a tsunami. we have decided to subject all of our power plants to a stress test, a safety test. that the energy mix comes under the

sovereignty of member states. some have opted for nuclear energy. others have not. for those who have opted for nuclear energy, things will be as follows. the commission will set the framework for the standards and monitoring. independent nuclear authorities will conduct the tests. they will make the results public. the european authorities in charge of nuclear energy issues will say whether or not the standards have been met. for france, if any power plant does not meet the standards, it will be shut down. all the tests will be conducted in france on our nuclear power plants. all results will be public. if the tests were to be filled or unsatisfactory, we will take all necessary measures. that means shutting them down.

>> you explained yesterday -- we talked about nato and command structures. i could not see you. above and beyond the structure issues and military operations that you talked about yesterday, did you feel today that europe is totally united as to the political and diplomatic fallout for libya? >> the next stage is the summit in london on tuesday. probably before the summit, mr. cameron and myself will suggest a common way forward in order to do things stage by stage. the next thing specifically is the london summit on tuesday with members of the coalition will talk about the political steering and next stages. to be a they're going franco-british proposal for

peace in libya? >> there will no doubt be an initiative to show the solution can of the simply a military one. it will have to be political and diplomatic even though mr. gaddafi has an apparent inability to listen to reason. that has made it necessary for us to intervene militarily. when france returned to nato, it was with the idea and hope of developing the defense capabilities of the european union. on the libyan matter, we know that virtually all of our partners want to rush the nato umbrella even though we have our

own back garden, as the british would say. >> i remember france was a member of 18 of nato's committees. it joined the 19th. it is still not in the 20th. i do not think i have let go of anything by reinterpreting the command structure -- re- integrating the command structure. the major countries of the u.k. and france has led to the fact that we've launched british and french planes and others. you are very familiar with your. it rests

on your two most powerful armies, mainly the french and british. who else would you want us to have as a majority partner? germany has made a choice. the choice is to stand united with europe and its european partners. germany has a history. the german sensitivity does not lead them to spontaneously carry out military operations on territories outside of their own since the end of the second world war. each country has its own history and past. i am delighted with germany we found a compromise and the europe stands completely united on the libyan question. there is a franco-british leadership. everyone knows that. the fact that we read- integrated the 19th nato committee does not change

anything about that fact. what would it have changed if we had not re-integrated? there has to be some sort of framework to organize the management aboard the planes. i think our american friends are right to say they do not want to be the ones to provide the framework. i think it is wise considering middle eastern sensitivities. someone has to do that. >> do you think france should step in? >> we have machinery in the area that we will use. it is working. the proof of that is that two countries or not members of nato will be participating in the action and flights over libya without their been the slightest hitch.

the political strength applies to coordination. what should we have done differently? >> i am only too happy to discuss the matter. i do not have an issue with that. what was the alternative solution? either the united states are the framework nation to coordinate. you would have said running behind the united states. i think is right they should not do so for reasons i have already given, namely the sensitivity of arab public opinion. why should they stand against nato machinery been used if the political steering is in the hands of the coalition? do you think france should be the ones to take over from the united states do you think we are not committed enough already? this would mean i would have to come up with a system to compete

with nato machinery. who would think that makes any sense. there are military headquarters where we are all present in naples, italy. it is a european country close to the mediterranean. why not use what is available? i do not see what kind of political problem that could give rise to as long as political coordination is in the hands of the coalition. it is not nato forces that will be protecting civilians in libya. it is the coalition. yesterday, there were 60 planes flying in libyan skies. there has to be some machinery to coordinate the missions. who is going to do that? it will be the command center in

naples. with the political coordination, it will be the 11 member countries of the coalition. there is no political problem there for us. five do not see what you mean by european command structure. -- i do not see what you mean by european command structure. do we integrate the arab emirates into the structure? it is an interesting concept i am prepared to consider. what would be the point of setting up a system that would compete with what already exists and what we have? it makes no sense. i have no problem answering your questions on the matter. this is a practical issue and not a political one. the political one would have been more significant if we lost the support of the league of arab nations and emirates and

qatar. that would have been a political problem. europe agreed on the importance of the u.n. security resolution. the machinery is not a political problem, frankly. >> mr. president, do you not feel the libyan crisis is masking what is happening with thousands of refugees? what is being done to help the situation that is getting worse day-by-day? >> france has tabled a resolution of the security council on the subject on the tragedy worsening day-by-day. it was wrong for us to turn a blind eye to the tragedy. one cannot handle a crisis one at a time. it is scandalous.

they may be selling people in of john -- they may be showing people in abijan. the mention is being made of shells and helicopters. they will be prepared to shoot at people. that must be declared as completely illegal. that is where the united states has to do its work on the subject. >> mr. president, a question on the nuclear issues and portugal. on the nuclear front, one power plant is considered to be the most dangerous because it is the oldest and on a fault line. a lot of people think it should be shut down without the stress test. is that possible?

do you believe that portugal can survive without european help with -- up until the next elections? >> i am not in charge of portugal. it is up to portuguese authorities to decide what they will do or not. i do not have a view on the subject. i will not have a view on the subject. it is complicated enough for the portuguese to decide what they want to do. things are difficult enough already without us saying what they should or should not do. i think they have done the work they need to do. a lot of people tend to lose a cool head in times of crisis. i do not.

i think we have to have the stress tests and see what they come up with. if you say we have to shut it down before the stress test, what is the point of having the stress test? we said we will have been monitoring and stress test and then publish the results. we will see what to do. you are asking me to do the exact reverse. it is better to have the stress tests, publishe the results, and then take the decision. if we have reason to believe it is dangerous, we should shut it down straight away. i have no reason to believe that. i have no reason to take that decision. it would be shocking not to have some kind of stress test. on the basis of results, we will decide whether to shut it down or not. it is astonishing to decide to do the monitoring and then decide that you will shut the thing down before you have done

the monitoring. that would indicate you have already gotten the results beforehand. >> mr. president, on libya. this morning, nato said on sunday night the international coalition will disappear as such and be swallowed up by nato. i would like your confirmation on this. you talked about the political coordination undertaken in london. what is your intention and that of the contact group? is it to give directives to nato or come up with ideas for the future of libya? >> thank you for asking this question. the spanish planes flying with us, and yesterday the french

planes picked up from where the spanish ones left off. decisions will be taken by our political coordination mechanism. the strike decisions are taken by authorities. nato determines, manages, and organizes the mission. it discusses the objectives and the outcome of the coordination. there should be no difficulties there. i do not want to be repetitious by reminding you of what i said previously. we have political coordination of the highest levels. those are the members of the coalition. the other question, i believe? >> the absorption of the coalition by nato. the fact that nato is going to swallow up the coalition.

>> nato cannot swallow the emirates and qatar. that is impossible. it would be counterproductive. it would be playing into the hands of colonel gaddafi to tell him nato is taking over the coalition. we will keep the political steering mechanism. we will coordinate our operational actions by nato. there will be no changes. the last question? >> on political steering, do you feel the high representative has played a powerful role in the libyan crisis -- played her full role in the libyan crisis? has she passed the stress test? one has a sense that it was the member states trying to give political impetus to this rather than the high representative.

>> i believe we have worked hand in glove with him. the high representative has played her full role. it is the high representative that has leverage on our armed forces. there is no such thing as a european armed force. it is not the high representative beckon: -- coordinate with the coalition forces to. she will be present at the london summit. she is in charge of the humanitarian aspects. someone else is in charge of political matters. britain and france have shown leadership in putting their armed forces of the service of the international objectives. it is not always simple, but ultimately it has worked smoothly. we decided something on saturday.

things started happening as of saturday night. things did not go too badly. >> i am with italian television. mr. president, what is your opinion on the matter taken by the silvio berlusconi government? >> i would like to have a view on the subject. i must say you have scored. you have flummoxed me on that. i do not have a position. i would not like to say something stupid. perhaps if you could come back another time, i would be happy to answer the question. and is expecting just about anything except that. -- i was expecting just about

anything except that. it is not that i am not interested. please do not hold it against me. it is something i am not familiar with. you can call me. you can call my wife. you can speak italian to her. i think it is time to put an end to this press conference. have a pleasant weekend. thank you. >> the french president from earlier today. later at the state department, the u.s. ambassador to libya's said the opposition in the country is "off to a good start." he also talked about nato assuming full control of the military mission against muammar gaddafi. this is 25 minutes.

>> welcome to the state department. it is our good fortune to have ambassador gene cretz, our ambassador to libya. we thought it would be a good idea to have him walking through some of the current events in libya. >> good afternoon. i am the u.s. ambassador to libya. i resided in libya until late december of 2010. you all know the circumstances under which i left. i am not here to discuss these circumstances. i am here to discuss the situation in libya today and what the united states and its coalition partners are doing to stop the brutality and bloodshed of the gaddafi regime denying its people its rights.

my embassy team was evacuated from libya on february 23. it has been reconstituted in washington. they are playing an active role in providing information, analysis, and assistance based on their experience. we're trying to find clarity about a place that in the best of times can only be described as opaque. now it is exponentially more difficult to get the kind of precise information we would like. let's discuss how we got here. on february 17, a brave group of libyan citizens decided they no longer wanted to live under a repressive regime which denied them their most basic universal rights for over 41 years. the libyan peaceful -- people peacefully protested.

the gaddafi regime slaughtered its own citizens. the consequences of those. actions with the exodus of thousands of peruvians and foreigners, the international community rushed to provide assistance of the tunisian and egyptian borders. we have provided humanitarian assistance. we have help workers get back to their countries. we continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of libya. the libyan people appealed to the world to stop these barbaric attacks. the international community spoke with one voice to condemn them and respond. the arab league called for urgent action. the u.n. security council mandated of necessary measures to protect civilians, including a no-fly zone. we also implemented our own unilateral response including sanctions.

it became clear that gaddafi and his henchmen had no intention of seizing the violence and bloodshed. as the secretary said last night, we faced the prospect of an imminent humanitarian catastrophe in benghazi. by his words, actions, and past deeds, we had to take gaddafi at his word when he threatened to go house to house to seek revenge against the people of benghazi. the coalition was compelled to act. the effort garnered the support and active participation of patients who recognized the significance of coming together in the international community to address the situation in libya. the libyan people must be allowed to have a voice. ultimately, it is the libyan people that will forge a path forward for libya. our immediate goal is to ensure that we provide humanitarian

assistance and protection to achieve their aspirations. >> bring us up-to-date on your contacts or other u.s. officials' contacts with the opposition since the first meeting in paris between the secretary and mr. jibril. tell us if you are closer to following the lead that france started as recognizing them as the legitimate coalition. cretz we saw that the council -- >> we saw the council had constituted itself as the governing body. we recognize some of those people were people we dealt with during our 10 years -- tenures in libya. from the start, i have been reaching out to the leaders of the council.

since the embassy was reconstituted here, we have had extensive dealings and contacts through our various programs, especially educational programs, with the people of the east. i had a very active public affairs section in libya. they were always communicating with the doctors, interests, and people who are now part of the council. we have a good in to those people. we have been gradually stepping up our contacts with them on a daily basis. you are all aware that the secretary in paris last week met with mahmoud jibril, a prominent former official in libya. he was the head of the national economic development board, a think tank in the forefront of trying to institute and recommend economic reform in

libya. he has been named as one of the two coordinators of the council to the international community. we have been in contact with them constantly. in terms of my own contacts with them as well, if you look at what they've done from the start, i think they have moved in a very positive direction. from the beginning of the crisis, they organized local groups in the various cities regime.om gaddafi's it was a grassroots movement. they organized people at the start to take care of garbage, electricity, water in those various cities. they then elected representatives to the main council, a body of 31 that now calls itself the transitional

national council. they appealed for humanitarian aid. they appointed representatives from the start because they knew they had to deal with the international community. they appointed mr. jibril in the former ambassador to india. they have been very careful about trying to get the right messaging across to the international community. i hope you have seen some of the documents they have produced over the past several days. one of them is welcoming the coalition efforts on their behalf to protect them from the ravages of the gaddafi onslaught. second, they were talking about the disparaging of the claims by the gaddafi regime in the beginning that the coalition efforts and bombings were resulting in civilian

casualties. third, they called upon other members of the international community to help them. since that time, they have published several documents. one of them was about three days ago. they talk about what their vision of a future libya would look like. it had all the right elements in it in terms of human rights, women's rights, equal participation. it was a very good document. from what we know and have seen over the past month, i think they're off to a good start. that is not to say that we know everything about them. we do not. we have to be very careful about who might be included in the future. and how they will go about forming a government if they have the opportunity. ish about wholyanna we're dealing with. i can say that they are off to a

good start. they do not seem to be in any way incompatible with the kind of ideals that we would be advocating in that situation. >> can you address the question about recognition? >> we are still dealing with the recognition question. there are elements of legality involved and elements of international law. that has not stopped us from taking important steps. our embassy in tripoli, when our staff left, we suspended operations. we recently asked the libyan embassy here to suspend operations. we have named a special envoy we hope will be able to get to benghazi when the security situation allows itself over the

next several days. the secretary stepped up the level of representation in terms of our discussions with the opposition. without getting into the issue of further recognition -- whether recognition is a critical factor or not, i think we have taken steps to indicate our support for the opposition. >> on humanitarian assistance, what tangible assistance is the u.s. government giving the opposition? are you reaching out to help them think about how they might form ministries or seek to govern some part of libya? are you doing any of that kind of work? >> the array of options with respect to how we can help the council is being discussed in washington. nothing is off the table right now.

i and others from my team have made informal proposals to the council. as it moves forward, should it require help in terms of shaping a constitution or assistance in the transformation of this kind of situation to a democracy or whatever it might emerge, we are willing to offer any kind of assistance they would like. we're going to make the offer. we will wait and see exactly what they would like us to do. we will then determine that. >> can i ask you to take that further? the opposition said they are looking for that kind of political recognition and support. after the no-fly zone is set up, if you could have a protracted situation.

these people are in the east and trying to develop themselves. they are asking for this type of political support. do you have a plan for that? you have said the military operation is not to get rid of gaddafi. the president and secretary have said that the political goal would be that he steps down from power. how do you achieve that goal? there is talk about an indictment for colonel gaddafi in the international criminal court. knowing what you do about the regime, do you see any situation where colonel gaddafi would step down from power and turn himself over to the hague? and you have any further contacts with his inner circle? >> with respect to the potential needs of the council as they

move forward, we have done a lot of discussions. we have begun to do some planning under various scenarios that might emerge from the current situation. in several of those scenarios, the idea we might be able to help with some kind of political training, legal advice is part of that. we would make ourselves available with the full array of different programs and departments we have available throughout the u.s. government should they request that. i think the icc has begun an investigation. i will leave it to them to determine the case against gaddafi. i will not speculate on what colonel gaddafi's intentions are as a result of any of these

actions. two years of living in libya taught us not to speculate on the potential actions of any member of the regime, much less colonel gaddafi. with respect to my own contacts, i have had limited contact with some of the regime members. some have contacted me. i have contacted some of them. this was basically with the sole purpose of ensuring that they had seen the president's comments last friday and to make sure that they understood what was it state -- at stake for the international community and themselves. they should look to the comments that the president made as a warning to make sure they

understood the full import of the president's message. >> the other day, the secretary spoke about members of the inner circle reaching out trying to find a way out of the country. and was wondering what you could tell us -- i was wondering what you could tell us about members of his family or covenant in breaking ranks. >> someone mentioned there have been several contacts between members of the regime to assistant secretary feltman last week. it is clear if the regime is reaching out to several possible mediators to try to get a message across. i am not sure exactly what the message is. it clearly indicates some kind of desperation at this point. i cannot give in to -- we have

not really been involved in those discussions until now. >> yesterday the former libyan ambassador to the united states said the opposition fighters need training, weapons, ammunition. you made a case that the no-fly zone will come to nothing if they cannot give the rebels and of materials to take gaddafi out. the opposition members are students and professors. they are not trained fighters. seven members of the council are university professors. only three are generals. you are making a powerful point for the need for military support in addition to the no- fly zone. where do we stand on that? >> i am not going to get into

internal discussions we're having about whether we will provide arms or not. the full gamut of potential assistance we might offer is a subject of discussion within the u.s. government. there has been no final decisions made on any aspect of that. >> do you agree with the assessment of the no-fly zone could create a stalemate? >> there are several scenarios playing out. this is a very fluid situation. it is very difficult to know which scenario is going to play out. it could result in a stalemate. there are several other possibilities as well. i do not think at this point anyone has good insight given how fluid the situation is on how this will turn out. >> [unintelligible]

why the reluctance? >> it is under advisement. we are considering the issue of recognition. it runs into several legal questions of international law. there are other things that countries can do short of recognition at this particular point. it has not prevented us from doing the things we need to do with respect to showing our very strong support for the council. >> there has been some reporting that suggests as rebels have cleared out towns, they have put loyalists into the same jails that gaddafi was using to throw

opposition people into. notwithstanding what you said earlier about the good start the council is off to, are you troubled by anything you have seen on the part of the rebels in terms of their own behavior in the towns and cities they have gone into? a lot of analysts continue to say we do not know anything about the rebels. do you think that is a wrong statement? >> with respect to the allegations of potential rebel atrocities, i do not have any information about that. we are very -- in our consultations with them, we have been very strong in telling them they need to be careful with their messaging about who they are. this is part of their ability to influence the international community.

i would hope those things you spoke about are not taking place. i think we will have to wait and see if they are and then have to deal with it. with respect to the opposition -- the question? >> is it wrong when people say we do not know who the rebels are? . .

the statements they made led us to conclude they are a positive force and once we should be engaged with at this point. >> if you could talk a little bit about an algeria-based terrorist group that is a most recent iteration called al qaeda and islamic maghreb. what influence have they had more recently in the past couple of months and what concerns do you have about their infiltration as they moved forward. >> it's clear acym is a danger

to the region. certainly, we have worked closely with our fellow governments in the region to start and to gather information about them and to stop any potential operations that they might carry out. from the start, when i first met with the representatives of counsel, i said, they told me that they were aware that there could be a problem with aqim trying to take advantage of the situation. after all, we don't know what the situation at the borders are and it's possible in a situation like this that you could have smo advantage -- taking advantage and in fact they told me that at the very first week of the crisis that there had been an effort by some aquim members to infiltrate but the counsel in fact had caught them. but it was maybe three or four at the time. they're very aware of the problem. obviously, colonel qaddafi has used the aquim card, in fact to

say -- and this is all of the discussions we've had, there's been an unrelenting litany ad nauseam, this is aquim, home grown movement and in no way to disparage the opposition. it's clearly a card that he thinks he might be able to get some benefit of. it's patently ridiculous. gout we have concerns about aquim? certainly we do. but i think the counsel is also aware of that as well. >> last question. >> hi plrks ambassador. two things, you said you offered the opposition rebels all of the help -- or any help they might wish. have they asked you for anything specifically? secondly, have they been invited to take part in the meeting on tuesday in london? >> since the beginning of the crisis, they have been clear that they would like recognition certainly from the united states, from the international community, they made requests

for arms, they made requests for a whole range of things. on each of hose issues we have said we would -- we would consider that and in fact provided some humanitarian support and as i said, the other issues are still being discussed. nothing is off the table at this particular point. with respect to whether they've been invited, that will be a question for our british hosts. i'm not sure -- >> do you know? >> i do not know, no. >> thank you. >> can you give us five more minutes? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> that briefing taking place at the state department earlier today. at the same time, white house secretary john carney held brifing with reporters and announced president obama will deliver a speech in the very near future on the u.s. roll -- role in libya and the region. here's a portion of the

briefing. it runs 20 myths. it runs 20 minutes. >> that's part of the meeting with the president and rank and file membership and committee members on the hill, it's part of that process and he is -- he looks forward when congress is back to having these meetings in person. but while they're on recess, he'll -- he looks forward in just a matter of minutes to updating them on our progress. all that has been accomplished, the live that's have been saved, incredible speed with which we have done what we said we would do, what the president said we would do, which is transfer command and control to nato.

and update them on -- on the progress or how we see things going forward. but this is one in a series of consultations. >> clearly you guys are listening to what's happening up on the hill. there's a criticism. was there concern in the white house about the ongoing pressure, if you will, for the president to speak with lawmakers, explain what he's doing? >> i will go back to what i said yesterday, which is that we have consulted in congress. i read a lengthy list of engagements that members of the administration had with congress on this issue. we understand that it's -- it's our responsibility. we take the need to consult very seriously and the president will continue to do that as will senior members of his administration. i will also say that what i said yesterday, but it bears repeating, that there was an urgency to act here. and had the president waited

given the pp preponderance of evidence that was available to everyone, that current qaddafi's forces were about to move on benghazi and wreak horrible damage and kill many, many libyans, had he waited for congress to come back, had he waited for more -- taken more time to debate and consult on this issue, i think there's very little doubt that benghazi would have fallen and many people would have died. he believes very strongly he made the right decision. >> no-fly zone in iraq years knopf-fly zones, pressure did nothing to run saddam hussein from power. i'm wondering if in libya is the administration prepared for a long, drawn out process where libya remains under the control of muammar qaddafi? >> as you know, even the -- the military mission that is

described in security council resolution 1973 goes beyond just the no-fly zone, as you know, and it includes the civilian protection piece that enables -- well, enables the coalition to do more to protect civilians then i believe the no-fly zone allowed in northern iraq. secondly, as you know on a separate track, it is the united states' position, the president has stated often that muammar qaddafi is not foyt lead and we believe he should leave power and we are engaged in a host of actions, unilaterally and multilaterally, that are designed to put pressure on qaddafi to put pressure on those around him with the aim of that he will take the decision or those around him will take the decision that he has to go. and we don't have crystal balls. i can't predict what the future

will bring but we will stay focused on those measures even as the military mission reaches benchmarks of success and as the transfer occurs, we will continue with the -- with those tool that's we have to put treasure on qaddafi and his regime. >> so the administration is pushing for a zphupe >> that's not what i said. i think we said that the libyan people, we have said the libyan people need to decide who their leaders are. we think quite clearly qaddafi had lost legitimacy in the eyes of his people. not least because he murdered his people in large numbers. and the purpose of many measures they're taken including sanctions and other measures are aimed at putting pressure on him and isolating him so he either makes a decision or those around him come to the conclusion that the future is not bright for this regime, and its capacity to

function is severely limited in the world. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> how can i help you, mike? >> you use the word consult, you're consulting congress. they've been complaining you have been informing them but not consulting. for example, the meeting of last friday was here by teleconference. >> some members were here and some called in. >> i understand. >> you're consulting them to what end are you consulting them? are you asking them for congressional action? why not just tell them what's going on and inform them? >> well, we want to hear what they think and if they have suggestions about things that we should be doing, we obviously the president wants to hear that. it is well as we described and others described well within the president's constitutional authority to take this military action. the list of precedence is quite long. but he believes the

consultations with congress are important and he does want to hear their thoughts about the mission, about the situation in libya and about our overall policy there. >> and the question of leading the coalition, have we ever led the coalition, are we still leading the coalition? when will we stop leading the coalition? >> we were prains pal actor in the first phase of the m.s.g. mission because of our unique casts and capabilities that were brought to bear in creating the environment necessary to force the no-fly zone and creting an environment where cities like benghazi could be -- >> but a principal actor leaves of question of someone else leading. >> there was no question we were leading in the first phase. >> first among equals? >> it's a partnership but in the first several days were finding

a majority and doing most of the missions. others were as well than ratio has been shift dage by day. to answer the second part of your question, today as i speak, the authority command and control authority for the enforcement of the no-fly zone is being shifted to nato. it will no longer be a u.s. lead. there's an agreement before the command and control over the rest of the mission, civilian protection mission, there's an agreement at a political level and military plans associated with that are being worked out noun will be worked out in the next several days. >> right, i yield that. >> the united states as a leader has been leading in the first phase, that means the president and commander and chief has been leader of this operation so far. will he be giving up that leadership role as the transition happens?

>> we made clear from the start, from the moment the president announced his decision to take this, our role in the lead would be a matter of days, not weeks. as we fwrout bear our unique assets and capabilities to create an environment in libya that allowed our allies to enforce the no-fly zone and our allies to take the lead in civilian protection. that prosspross -- process is under way now as he said. he said what he would do and he's doing what he said. don't see the confusion. >> it's not confusion but a lot of people, most republicans and some democrats, are uncomfortable with the united states and president stepping back from a leadership role when it's a major international action. >> there are a lot of voices, chip, about how we should approach this. one thing i know president believes strongly is the wrong course of action would have been in this country or other countries unilateral military action to remove the leader of an arab country.

i am confident most americans think that would have been a bad apretch. instead he pursued a policy where he worked very quickly to build an international coalition that includes arab support vitally important to launch this military action geans daffy's forces. it is the right thing to do, smart thing to do and best thoing do in u.s. national interest in the long term. as i said about libya and other countries, it is vitally important that the transition we have seen in this country and other countries, which is unfolding every day, be recognized for what it is, which is organic. it's about the people of these countries demanding to be heard, greater rights, greater freedom and less repression. it's not about the united states of america. making that decision is about

leadership, about keeping your eye on the ball. what's in the interest of the people, the national security interest. >> the humanitarian interest was to prevent a human catastrophe if it becomes clear there is no longer a threat, will the u.s. pull out? >> the mission as you rightly state sd to protect civilians. you're talk about the military mission. the united states will continue to participate in the coalition to enforce the mandate given by the united nations security council resolution 1973 for as long as is necessary to make sure that those civilians are protected. we as i said in answer to dan's question are pursuing a whole host of other measures, unilaterally and multilaterally with our partners to continue to put pressure on the libyan regime, qaddafi regime. >> one last question to clarify -- the pentagon said u.s. pilots, will they anticipate that u.s. pilotless continue to participate in strike missions, not just surveillance but strike

missions in libya even after the transition? to whom will those velts be reporting? americans? >> i will refer you to the pentagon for specifics. i believe i said -- and the details lie across the river at the defense department. but it is certainly the case that while the command and control -- command and control transition is still pending on the civilian protection aspect of this, that the united states will continue to fly sorties as part of that mission. again, that's a matter of days and not weeks. we're taking -- overall it's about a lead role. i will refer you to the pentagon for what we will continue to be doing. what we will not be is in the lead in either the no-fly zone or civilian protection. >> is the president comfortable having u.s. pilot report to foreign commands? >> i think this president and the previous prewas comfortable having united states forces report to nato commanders,

non-american nato commanders in afghanistan. that's how nato works. we feel very comfortable with the structure of nate yofmente it is, by the way, the moist successful and powerful military alliance in the history of the world and we think it's quite a good one. >> the broad coalition the president built is the right, smart and best thing to do in terms of u.s. national interest, but also appeared to move more slowly than a coalition of folks more on the same page. is that just an acceptable tradeoff? >> well, wendell, i would certainly say it was worth the time to assemble a coalition. i would also say that the time was pretty compressed. if you look at any historical precedent for this kind of action to be taken this, kind of collective action by our international partners, there is no comparison at all. and i think in the past i have given you a blow by blow of the comparison in terms of sanctions taken in bosnia or the use of

military force in bosnia and how long took for the world to act in these cases and that's certainly true in a host of previous examples. so the speed here i think was notable and the need to do it with the coalition of international partners was essential. >> given it is u.s. policy qaddafi lost his legitimacy and should go but that is not the goal of the u.n. security council resolution, one of the questions speaker bangor has is can military action in libya end with qaddafi still in power? >> that's a question that depends on qaddafi's decision regarding the use of force and violence again his people, against the people of libya. i dare say they're not his

people. the mission of the united states -- the mission of the military coalition authorized by the security council is to protect libyan sixens and that mission continues as long as libyan civilians are threatened by qaddafi's forces. >> meaning, if he stops threatening them? >> i can't predict the future in how this plays out. what i have said is what the mission is i have also i think elaborated on the other actions they have taken and what their goal and purpose is and those continue now and in the future regardless of or in concert with the m.s.g. mission. >> secretary of state clinton said she feared libya could become another somalia. with groups like al qaeda and islamic ma greb, is the lack of

boots on the ground, if you will, leaving an opening for them? do you need a more robust -- >> the president made very clear we are not sending american troops into libya on the ground. we are obviously working in a variety of ways to reach out to the opposition in libya to advise them on what a post qaddafi libya would best look like in the sense that we believe as with every country in the region, that the government that is most responsive to the aspirations and grievance of its people will be the most successful. so those confrontations are

obviously part of our policy. >> might sound like a silly question but the format of the president's call to the lawmakers, will it be just him talking or will they be allowed to ask him conversations and give suggestions? >> don't know the conversation. >> do you know if his update will include cost nall sis of the war -- not the war, of the conflict? >> that may come up. i don't know since it's happening now. >> do you have any update when we will hear or the public will hear considering all of the confusion, everyone is asking about -- >> the president i can tell with you great confidence will speak about this in a relatively near future as he has numerous times in the last several days. he believes it's vitally important, it's part of his role as president and commander in chief to speak to the american people about an operation like this and he will do that in the very near future.

i'm not going to give you a time or day but in the very near future. not today but very near future. you guy can pepper me with questions, but don't have anymore on that. >> the week lay dress -- >> the weekly address is in bargio so i will not answer that now. whatever he talks about in the weekly address, if it were going to mention libia, it would not be the only time he addresses the american people on the subject of libya in the very near future. >> you might save yourself a lot of question if you put the conference call on the rope. >> i'm confident with the number of people on that call, the contents of the conversation will be known to you all very soon. >> the former libyan prime minister that was talking about the union said his country is ready to talk with opposition

rebels and accept political reform, possibly an election. are you aware of this? what's your reaction about how serious this offer is? >> without addressing the specific offer, we're aware of contacts that various members of the regime have made. i'll just sthay generally. but what we don't know is what they amount to in terms of the outcome. i'm not going to get into details about that. >> why do you think a gallup poll conducted this week shows the part for the mission in libya is the lowest since the start of any military action in the past three decades. >> how high was it? >> 47%, opposed to 51% who approved of kosovo. >> look, i think the american people have a lot on their mind and a lot on their plate right now.

we're still coming out of a worse recession since the great depression. we have been focused, the american government has, on the tragic events in japan. i think it's a lot for anybody to process. we're confident that the president's decision is the right one and will he speak to the american people as he has in the past about how he made his decision, what the objectives are and why he thinks it's the right thing for the united states and for the american people. >> a portion of this afternoon's white house briefing. also today, connecticut congressman john larson spoke with "washington journal" on why he feels congress should debate the issue of u.s./libyan involvement. here's a look at his comments now. >> congressman larson, should the president have gone to you

and your colleagues before deciding what action to take in libya? >> well, i believe so and i think minimally, i think especially given the nature of this mission and we certainly understand the caution that the president exhibited and i certainly commend him and the second of state for the action they took to make sure they have both the united nations, the security council, the resolution, the arab league, to make sure they had that all in hand before they acted. but while they were doing that, i think it would have been better had he briefed the congress and in classified briefings would have been fine but i think members would have felt a lot better about that now. the president did brief the leaders last thursday of the respective committees of

cognizant and some of the top leaders in congress that were there. but that's not briefing the entire congress. some members were home on the district work period or trying to deal with this issue on the fly. and it's a long history here of -- dating back to harry truman and the korean war. and the war powers act after the vietnam conflict where congress as an equal branch of government needs to be informed. >> let's goat calls from congressman larson. david joins us from santa fe on the independent line. good morning. >> good morning. i'm a disabled decorated world war ii veteran. so i've lived -- i've lived through the depression when we had the great leadership of f.d.r. and i've -- i was i guess fortunate enough to serve overseas from near the end of

world war ii and then china, japan, korea, et cetera. and i come from a family that's always had a part in military service. and in politics. i was very, very dace pointed by the -- disappointed by the bush administration's absolutely unspeakable war in iraq, which is the war of a corporate -- in my opinion -- i'm a registered independent but the war of a corporate stake against a country that had been already defeated in the gulf war and was only -- anybody knew it would only be a matter of time before saddam and his apparatus would be dismissed and big change would come in iraq. instead we lost 5,000 of our

most precious young people who every one of them volunteered. and we mishandles the entire iraqi situation so horribly with the aftermath of that. i saw some of that in the philippines, but it was very brief. this was absolutely indescribable and now we're involved in a war in afghanistan. i see the casualty list every day on the news when i watch national public television. and i'm deeply disturbed by the way the president, who i supported and voted for and urged all my friends to vote for and so on, the way he and his administration have handled our foreign affairs in the middle east. >> let's get a response, david, from congressman larson. >> david, certainly, first of all, thank you for your service to the country and i certainly share a number of your concerns,

have nothing but the utmost respect for our president but since vietnam, this has been a very tender issue-to-so to speak, tender from this perspective. the constitution clearly lays out congress is an equal partner in declaring war and also the war powers act also would lay out the process by which woe go to war. and especially underlining that are some core concepts. are the -- is the -- does libya represent an imminent threat to the united states of america? i think you can argue that point. if it represents an imminent threat to the united states, what is our mission? what is our exit strategy? how long will we be there? what will it cost?