which obscene any enforcement of this by the epa. i think the gentleman for yielding and i want to make sure we get the right numbers. you mention hundreds of thousands. we've dirty $2 million that were used that it would be peaceful. >> they may be asking it another way if they didn't get a permit the were in violation of the law. >> yes. >> okay, good. >> now moving on here, in the far sell bushfield much of the produced water is not disposed of bye injection wells as you are aware but rather is transported the waste water treatment plants many of them municipal and th treated and discharged into waterways. and here i am trying to get at the best practices. is this better or worse than disposing th preus water and underground injection?

>> underground injection for the disposal was going to be permitted to deal with those issues. the problem we have in many places if all the want to say this is everywhere that the discharge limits on the actual sewage treatment plant the limits it has to discharge into the water that its permit to discharge may not have the limits on at for the chemicals and constituents that might be in the fluids going into the plant to be treated so that there would be no way to know if it is meeting those limits before its discharge to the water. i'm not saying that is the case everywhere but many publicly owned sewage treatment plants haven't put limits on their diharge to deal with the constituents of the fracking fluid or the produd war and that is the issue we are working on in pennsylvania for instance. >> and so you are seeing that as a problem it sounds like.

if they don't adjust their wheat waste water treatment to deal with it is coming in, which isn't like municipal sewage is much different in terms of the constituents, that could be a problem and you are trying to get on top of that. >> either putting a limit on the planned figuring out how the plant handles it or treating the fluids before it is brought to the plant so that it can be compatible with the plant those are the two approaches you can take to the sewage treatment plant whereas a permit class ii, i think that's true, -- underground injection would be permitted to deal with those issues. >> but today we have been just alluding to produce water into trucks and driving it over to the waste water treatment plant and then dumping it into the waste water treatment plant. are you aware that they are preaching it?

>> and number of those instances where we have learned about those are ones we are working directly with the states or gathering information to the enforcement authority under the clean water act. >> thank you very much for your service. >> senator merkley? >> thank you, mr. chair, and i want to ask you about the article the cornell university researchers cannot with recently that try to taha will get the impact of the trucking and the fugitive methane and carbon dioxide and other initial finding was that natural-gas is worse than cold in terms of its greenhse gas footprint over a 20 year riod roughly equal to call over 100 footprints which is a real surpre to many of us

and is this an issue that epa are analyzing and looking at? >> we've had a voluntary program working with companies to tighten up their system to duce fugitive emissionsof methane which is the natural gas. however this study which i don't think has actually been published yet although it's been discussed in the newspapers and the basic outlines of it are available is an important piece of information we need to bring into the discussion. if it indeed is some leakage out of the system these are generally problems that can be addressed through proper controls or through collection controls at the wellhead so i think it needs to be tak into account. the other iue i mentioned earlier on the clean air, the

same kind of techniques to reduce the emissions for the regular criteria are also reduced the emissions of methane, and this is something that is going to have to be looked at over the long haul we are going to have to fugitive emissions can be reduced. >> my understanding is thaa lot of these emissions are the result of actually the fracking fluid carrying the net into the service and it goes into a pond or anywhere else that methane then gases into the atmosphere, so if it is contaid in the fluid, what strategies are there that could address this? >> there are technologies that can be used when the fluids come to the surface-- >> that's why masking. i'm asking what technologies? >> i'm not familiar with the details.

there are both tightening of the system but also collected and strict. m not 100% certain. we've been working with companies in a voluntary program to do some of these and i think i can folloup ith you if it is okay with giving you more specificson what technologies have been tried and used we would be interested in sharing at with the committee and obviously it's something that if this study after we review it ads to this discussion we are going to definitely want to be looking as a country at reducing the emissions from these facilities, but in addition we want tbe looking at reducing emissions of the criteria pollutants causing the ozone and other problems as well. so all of that can be done together in a common sense kind of way. >> are you familiar with the documentary quote coke gas land

to"? >> generally famliar, yes. >> it is a dramatic demonstration that notes -- i just read the description of it, and so the film maker once the kitchen faucet and then holds a cigarette lighter up next to it and a ball of fire erupts from so much gas that has entered into the water supply from fracking in in the area. so, this is obviously pretty dramatic demonstration of the concern ople have about the water supply. >> we definitely have examples and we've seen some where the drinking water supplies have been contaminated with methylene itself, and in those cases we learn of this the epa is taking enforcement action to correct those problems or deal with those problems.

as senator inhofe showed earlier in his charge, which showshe early years being very deep, the actual well has to go through the drinking water so if it not properly constructed 's conceivable and possible, and we have examps where it looks to see where we've seen methane contamination how that happened is with the subject of some of our analysis. spearman despite the halliburton lippold you feel like to have enforcement powers? >> when there is in dillinger and we have enforcement powers under the safe water drinking act. >> thank you. >> again, think you for your testimony. let me point out that the epa has authority to act in certain areas. and obviously, if we think it's not adequate then we will look at taking action and senator kec is introduce legislation.

but it seems to me that it's pretty clear is a relates to the waste water treatment fality issues on the fluid's returned to the surface it's my understandi tre is still seven waste-water treatment facility plants taking today the fluids coming out of fracking, and what you're own agency already acknowledging that it presents a threat to human help i would hope would be the highest priority as you will get the appropriate role for the epa. i think senator udall's pond concerning the eisel issue is one also requires the epa to take a more definitive action and senator merkley has raised important issue also so i hope that you will good on tv to respond to the urgency of some of these issues. as y will be pointed out you have the authority and it's now your responsibility to take action. is there any member seeking a second round? senator inhofe?

senator merkley? if not, then -- yes, sir? >> i just want to confirm what you just said, senator, that the epa is acting on all these fronts. we are take action where there is imminent danger as we just discussed and i think if you can step back for a minute the dynamic between the states and federal government and how we are working on -- how we have shared our authority for many years there is certainly something the epa's responsibility and oversight is one that we are in -- we are very much pushing forward on in a very strong and strenuous way. if i step back to my opening comments and simply say providing a framework that provides public confidence in what we are doing here because of the great need the country has to develop these resources for our energy needs what we also need to do at the same time is get together and make sure we try to provide the confidence

the public needs to allow this to happen. we will see in the long haul the situations where there is an unknown or uncertainty or that the states of new york for instance have to stop all activity because they are trying to figure of what's going on, so we need to be looking at it from that prspective on a national level how do we create that public confidence to move forward in the way we need to move forward, so i appreciate the chance to share some of these faults. >> we agree and want to work with you closely. the foundation and a host of other groups that petitioned the obama administration to the problematic environmental impact statement help understand the impact of all of the wells being currently operated. without objection, i will include in the record a copy of their petition. thank you had very much for your testimony. >> thank you. >> i wl now turn to the second panel which consists of dr. bald summers, the acting secretary of the maryland departmen of the

environment, dr. dan walz, the director of the center for health the environment and communities. mr. jack uppinger, jeff cloud, the vice chairman oklahoma conservation commission and david, the director of the colorado oil and gas conservation commission. we will start with dr. summers. welcome. >> you need to put your microphone on. >> okay. >> now you're on. >> chairman, ranking member on inhofe, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share maryland's experience and concerns with hydraulic fracturin in the marcello shettle, i'm bob summers, acting secretary of the maryland department of the

environment. the marcella shale formation underlines the county and part of allegheny county in maryland in the far western part of the state, and in movies to counties gas companies have released the gas rates are more than 100,000 acres. we're just beginning to enter into this. we currently have applications from two companies for a total of five wells. we are very mindful of the tremendous benits that could accrue to the abandoned and the economy by exporting and exploiting these gas reserves but we are equally alert to the risks of adverse public health and environmental effects. our paramount concern is protecting public health, the environment and the ground and surface water quality. were proceeding cautiously and deliberately and do not intend to allow drilling and fracking and marcel shalem maryland until

these issues aren't resolved to our satisfaction. there's numerous issues we've heard a lot about those already. some of the things we are particularly concerned about the act of sustainability of the surface water and ground water and the regions the supply fracking, the minimum requirements for constructing casing and cementing wells, minimum requirements for the integrity testing of the wells, requirements for installing and testing a owout prevention equipment, the potential for mass migration from the well including migration that can be induced from some of the leaders of the weld goes through versus the failure of the well itself, toxicity and transport of fracking fluids, proper haning and disposing of the naturally occuring radioactivematerials and many other aspects of this complex operation that need to be controlled.

in maryland we are moving forward and anticipate to take two stages in doing this. first, over the next year we are surveying existing practices and selecting best practices for drilling and fracking of the wells, these will cover all aspects of the preparation and design delivery and management material, drilling casing, cementing, fracking and waste disposal. after we develop this interim we will call to the gold standard and consider issuing permits for a sma number of exploratory wells to be drilled in maryland and we will carefully monitor these to provide more detailed information that we can use in order to take the second step in our process using the data from the exploratory wells along with the result of other research gathering from the surrounding states and other areas.

if we determine the gas production can be acomplished without unreasonable risk to the human health and in the environment but the department would then make the decisions on the aplications for production wells. the commission will reflect all of these best practices and avoid public health and enronmental harm. risk to public health and environmental harm. we need the federal government to take a more active role in studying and regulating the activities such as the deep naturally, horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracking and waste disposal, and why we believe the states should retain th responsibility and should be able to enact more stringent requirements if they desire the federal regulatory floo will ensure at least basic protection of public health. we believe the federal technical support and oversight such as it occu now between the water act and safe drinking water act are

particularly important to protect our interstate water such as the subsequent river, the potomac river chesapeake bay, though critical resources and in fact today we have right here and probably the potomac river water which also needs to be protected for the citizens in this area. we commend the congress for directing th u.s. cpa to conduct their research the state's needhe federal government to lead and ld resources to help us in this effort coming and we support the legislation that we've just heard discussed today to allow regulation under the federal law and safe drinking water act and tof require disclosure. so thank you for taking the initiative to inquire into this important issue and for providing this opportunity. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, dr. summers and

now dr. volz. thank you. thank you all for the opportunity at this joint hearing at this hearing an environmental impact. i believe the on conventional gas extraction in deep shale deposits presents considerable risks to public health and safety as well as to environmental resources particularly water quality and organisms. my testimony is going to cover three critical public health and environmental policy areas related to the unconventional natural gas production. number one, it's largely unregulated sightings of the wells, patterns of violation from the marcella shale that show impact on water resources and finally, i think a very important issue that has been brought up a couple of times,

the toxic substances entering the surface water sources from disposal of the flow backwaters through the treatment and sewage treatment plants. for someone to talk about the unregulated side of the gas wells in areas of the population density which also occurred near schools, critical infrastructure , this is shown a slight three of my presentation that i gave to the committees today. on conntional gas extraction wells or highly industrialized operations that very little resemblance to what we know in northeastern united states conventional oil and gas exploration. these are as i said, highly industriazed, and there can be risks of catastrophic blow outs, explosion, and or five-year and can create an immediate interest

situation. the unregulated side of the unconventional natural gas wells and production facilities in residential neighborhoods and critical infrastructure is very unwise, public health preparedness policy especially in light of tens of billions of dollars that we are spending in the federal state level to reduce the risk from terrorist attacks on us citizens and damage to critical infrastructure. second, the higher rates and a differential patterns of oil and gas act violations, and they are listed on a slight four of my presentation are different as compared to conventional oil and gas wells and suggest a much greater impact to drinking water and aquatic resources. we have done a study at my out said that shows that marcello

shale has about a 1.5 to four times depending on the denominator you use more violations than conventional oil and gas wells per offending well and that the violations are more serious and that the violations have a more direct impact on water quality. things like failure to minimize the accelerated erosion, emplment erosion and sedimentation plans, discharge pollution to the water commonwealth of pennsylvania, many general violations of the clean stream law, failure to properly store, transport, process or disposal of residual waste and failure to adequately construct or maintain these impoundments that hold actually toxic flowback water. the third problem and the

problem of my group has been looking at both sewage treatment plants and -- we have been looking a disposal flowback flui through the plants. we sampled a treatment facility in indiana county pennsylvania called pennsylvania treatment, josephine facility, and we found that coming out of the types of the plant was discharged of nine pollutants essentially all in excess of the naturally recognized human and or aquatic health standards into th nearby creek. these contaminants included barry m. and what was coming out in the was at times the minimum risk level in the drinking water for children and 27 times the epa consumption concentration

for fish and fish plus water. brougham models coming out in the water and it was its level was almost 10,000 times level of the water treatment facilities like to see in the background water of 100 parts per billion. benzene was found coming out at two times the drinking water standard and six times epa consumption criteria and 1.5 times the drinking water minimum risk level for children and last, we want to ethanol coming out of the pipes. this is an ether that is used in marcello shell gas extraction and we found coming out between 24 to 55 times the drinking

water minimum risk level for the intermediate exposure for men, women and children thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your testimony. mr. ubinger? >> thank you, chairman boxer, jarman carvin, ranking member in half and ranking member sessions for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the pennsylvania environmental panel concerning work related to the shale gas development in pennsylvania. it goes without saying a number of the members have already spoken to this that there are enorus economic and strategic energy implications to the development of the gas resource but as you have all been quick to add it must be done right. pennsylvania participation in the nation's gas is relatively recent and has occurred over the past five years the development of the marcella formation and the development of the marcella

gas pennsylvania has increased at an ever quickening pace and is expected to continue to do so we appreciate positive attributes of the shale gas development we are also cognizant that throughout its history it has paid an enormous price for the exploitation of its bountiful natural resources. in today's political discourse in many contexts, much is said about the burden that the current actions will impose of the future generations to come. when it comes to the legacy of natural resource exploitation we are the future generation and the cost of without restoration from prior resource exploitation is substantial if the lessons of the past have taught us anything is this while we are in the form reveals of the shield as industry, an industry we have a prominent part of the landscape for generations to come we must

identify and quantify the impact to the land, water, air and communities and is published a regulatory framework that mitigates the impact to the greatest extent applicable for the avoidable environmental degradation is not part of our legacy in the future generations the written testimony we submitted to the committee staff last week describes our work over the past two and a half years and it defies the number of enhancements pennsylvania preexisting regulatory structure which we believe doherty essential to the prudent management of the gas development. i would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions the committee may have with respect the written testimony however but i would like to focus on the moment is the issue of of the cumulative impact and the question is how we efficiently acquire relevant information to objectively assess and mitigate a team of the impact of the variety of activities which are required to extract, process and move the gas from the wheel hit the market we believe they are

assessing and then getting a can of the impacts are found in a program established in the river basin commission to regulate the water with drought for hydraulic factors. we applaud a robust of collection programs which predates the marcello jeal development in pennsylvania, however the data base to expand more information from the water areas of the marcello shettle regions used to make informed decisions for the authorization of the water with a drawl and informed decisions as to when the withdrawal must be suspended to avoid adverse impact. the key we think is the routine collection of data. similar data bases and programs are not currently feasible for assessing the cumulative impact of other attributes of the gas development such as discharge from the service management of waste water or air emissions from the development activities because the capacity to collect the data is not available. the pennsylvania environmental

council firmly believes shale gas development cannot be operly managed without an investment in the capacity to routinely measure a can of the impact on the ongoing basis. we further believe the federal government as well as the state has a vital role of establishing and funding a continuing research agenda that will enable the collection evaluation of the data required to access and mitigate the cumulative impact. we also believe it is important that the shale gas industry and the government of that the federal and the state level to collaborate on projects to develop and demonstrate through data best management practices to mitigate impacts and require the implementation of the management practices throughout appropriate regulations. in closing, let me reiterate the successful development of the gas resources is eomically important for the state's interest and strategically important to the country as a whole but it's critical we do it right. the the inslee in their middle council focused its efforts o the development of the regulatory program in pennsylvania which is based on

projected information driven processes designed to identify and quantify impact including cumulative impacts and to mitigate the impact to the greatest extent possible through the best management practices appropriately codified in the regulatory framework. we believe our rommendations for the pennsylvania conserve is a model for others in the regulation of on conventional natural gas development. once again let me think the committee for the opportunity to present our testimony. >> thank you very much. mr. klaus? >> [inaudible] >> the opportunity to visit with you today about the regulation of hydraulic fracturing as the decades of experiencin this regard and mike richter of testimony be submitted in the record. first given responsibility for the regulation in oklahoma at 1914 currently the commission has exclusive state jurisdiction over all oil and gas iustry at

tolino, including oversight and was that of rules aimed at pollution prevention and protecting the state's precious water supplies. presently there are over 15,000 wells in oklahoma and thousands of miles of gathering transmission pipelines. the recent years, the shale in oklahoma has become an important source of natural gas for the nation. the development of oklahoma shale like others inthe united states has been made possible by a horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies. hydraulic fracturing as the senator inhofe said has been used in oklahoma for over 60 years and more than 100,000 wells have been hydraulically track dirt over the period. over the more than half century of the hydraulic experience there hasn't been one single documented instance of contamination to the ground water for drinking water as a result of the process. to say that we take protction of the water quality seriously would be an understatement. the rules are constantly reviewed and updated with that in mind.

and with a general prohibition against pollution of any service of the subsurface press water and completion activities. oklahoma corporation commission rules address procedures in the event of unanticipated operational or mechanical changes. standard commission rules also require an operator to submit a completion report within 30 days after the completion activities, the volumes and of the fluids used in this process require it on the form. last fall, the oklahoma corporation commission and volunteered to have its hydraulic fracturing program reviewed by 12-year-old multi stakeholder organization known as stronger or by its full name state review of oil and natural gas environmental regulatis. from october 2010 through january 2011 again the multi stakeholder by the stronger conducted an in-depth examination of the oklahoma natural look regulatory program the review team included was lee savage, the texas railroad

commission, wilma of louisiana, and a critic of the domestic oil and gas industry and jim collins of the independent petroleum association of america. official observers included the oklahoma sierra club and the uned states environmental protection agency region six. the review team concluded that the oklahoma program is overall well-managed ofessional and meets its program objectives. incidentally, the u.s. epa and department of energy have provided a grant funding to stronger to support its activities. i would also note that in oklahoma the collaboration involving the regulator of the oil and gas industry other stakeholders in my state agency staff have repeatedly led to the successful if a woman of rules and policies to address environmental protection issues particularly the protection of water. an example there are two particular that are exceptionally clean in southeastern oklahoma in the reservoir that provide a high-quality water to the city

of oklaho city about 100iles away. they're also on top of the deep rock deposits that hold huge amounts of natural gas which in the best interest of oklahoma and the nation we want to allow the petroleum industry to find and produce. without the need of any federal intervention the city of oklahoma city the regulated oil and gas industry and the state work together to come up wth protections because we all realize that it's in our mutual best interest to ensure proper practical water and environmental protections with out cutting off access to the resources. major life itself didn't force oklahoma with any large natural bodies of water so fresh water is especially precious in my state. oklahoma has more than 50 man-made lakes and it's worth noting that texas is currently suing oklahoma in federal court to get the state's water. we must be doing something right. all of us can agree their knees to the rules of the road and the need to be followed and enforced. we are making sure that the rules are followed and that oklahoma's water and our

environment or protect it and r record is clear the state regulations are the best way to meet the goals. the fellow commissioners both hold elected statewide positions. we are directly accountable to the fellow oklahomans and we have the vested personal interest in ensuring the water is rotected. thank yo mr. chairman. mr. neslin? >> thank you. thank you for our opportunity to perspective on the public health and the environment while we develop our oil and gas resources. my name is david siegel, director of the colorado oil and gas commission. we have a rich natural heritage and thriving outdoor economy. i want to focus my comments today on the subject of hydraulic fracturing. most colorado is 44,000 wheel

and gas wells as well as the thousands of new wells would be drilled in the coming years rely on the hydraulic fracturing. this technology is vital to unlocking the oil and gas reserves which are critical source of the domestic energy and provide a good paying jobs and the needed tax revenue to the communities. but it's also essential this development occurs with an environmentally responsible manner. it's the regulatory mission and everyone at or agency takes it very seriously. to this and the environmental professionals have investigated hundreds of ground water complaints over the years we found no verified instance of the hydraulic fracturing are in grnd water. these investigations are all publicly available. we've also required operators to test water quality repeatedly and over time in more than 1900 water wells and one of our most product of natural gas fields. thousands of nearby oil and gas wells have been hydraulically fractured and structuring fluids

were reaching those water wells than you would expect the waters chemical composition to change. but independent analysis has found no statistically significant changes to those waters. this analysis is likewise publicly available. in addition, we have comprehensively updated our regulations to address a broad range of environmental issues. the current rules rex the responsible balance between energy development and environmental protection and they reflect substantial input from the local governments, oil and gas companies, environmental groups and thousands of individuals from across the state. other states have taken or are taking similar action in putting wyoming, oklahoma, ohio, pennsylvania and arkansas. the recent state rulemakings exemplify the benefits associated with state oversight and cite specific regulations and they specifically address hydraulic fracturing. in colorado for example, wells miss b ks and cemented to protect dhaka for furs anthey must be monitored during hydraulic fracturing.

if chemicals including hydraulic fracturing fluids and provide this opportunity to make the state and certain health care professionals their managers index and environmental protections for oil and gas to grumet in public drinking water sources. additionally the pressure testing, water wells and one is required for the shallow or cold bed methane wells and enhance requirement apply to the permitting, lining, monitoring to ensure was including any flowback of hydraulic fracturing fluids is properly contained. these regulations were important and substantially improved the ground water protection but we haven't stopped there. we are continuing to take pro-active cost-effective steps toensure hydraulic fracturing protect the environment. first, we and other states have worked closely with the ground water protection council on the launch of the new website, frackfocus.org. it encourages gas operators to

voluntarily provide information on the chemicals they use to hydrlically factor the well d can't let their own regulatory framework. second, we have arranged to have other hydraulic fracturing regulations professionally audited the summer by stronger and a national organization consisting of the state regulators and industry and environmental representatives. a stronger recently committed oklahoma as you heard of pennsylvania, ohio and louisiana and we are having them reviewed colorado's program to determine whether further improvements can be made on our end. further, we are actively investigating the alleged use of diesel fuel or fluid containing diesel fuel for hydraulic fracturing in colorado. while we believe our regulations would have prevented contamination drinking water supplies we are collecting information to independently assess that issue. fourth, we continue to address public concerns on this issue in an open and transparent manner. just last february the commission convened a full public hearing to examine allegations of the water will

contamination. in that case to commend the commissioners diverse representing and ital, industry, local government and other sectors unanimously determined that hydrlic fracturing had not impacted the well in question. in sumary, i want to stress how seriously we take the subject and that many other states are taking similar action. our experience and that of other states demonstrates how the hydraulic fracturing and other oiand gas activities are effectively regulated at the state level. we are highly diverse regional and local conditions are more fully understood and where the rules can be tailored to fit the needs of local reasons, local landscape of local communities. thank you. >> thank you all for your testimony. i'm going to urge the committee members to limit themselves to a four minute round, if you can get the panel completed with a vote on the floor. let me think all of you for yor testimony. mr. cloud i want to compliment the actions taken in the state

of oklahoma i thk it provided a good model that should be used in other states. i'm very impressed that the back weld light speed action can either be recycled or must be put into has understand it one of the containment wells which operates under the clean water act, it seems to me that you've been able to do exactly what was indicated that the federal government working with the state t develop the right framework dealing with natural gas extraction. why is it that you prohibit the back flow from entering into the waste water treatment facility plants? why have you taken that action? >> thank you, mr chairman. i believe tat the state has for many years making hydraulic fracturing for 60 years we've kept a close eye on it and we just make sure that the fluids be kept out of the water sulies and they are never set to water treatment facilities as you outlined.

only to e recycled and it to be injected into the abandoned wells. i'm curious as to why pennsylvania and other states are still alloing the backflow to enter treatment facility plants. either one of my friends from príncipe and have an explanation as to why the state is still permitting that? >> i think i do senator. it essentially boiled down to the very pressing need to dispose of a lot of material. there are wells drlled quickly and i believe it was an oversight by our pennsylvania department of environmental protection that a lot of this material was going to these treatment facilities that are very inefficient as well as the savitt treatment plants and no one had a handle on it.

>> there are wells that could have been injected to require transportation but there are wells that would have accepted it. >> in ohio, sir but it's a cost issue i assume so it is a pragmatic decision made which is we never want to see public health put at risk due to a pragmatic judgment. dr. summers commanders and the maryland legislature didn't act on moratorium, but as i understand, what you were saying at the pesent time maryland is uncomfortable moving forward until you understand the practices that will be used and safe for public health. >> that's correct. we have just started to receive permits. we've been watching very closely with pennsylvania reviewing the work out of new york looking at what's going on in other states very interested to look more closely at how wyoming is handling this, our plans are to proceed very cautiously and make sure we do have the best

practices in place we are able to et advantage that these other states have more experience than we do and also trying to work with the environmental protection agency because as i said, we believe that their role is very critical in providing the background information and technical support. >> senator inhofe? >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm sorry about the votes coming up. i think you're doing the right thing thgh, although we would all like to have more time to ask questions. what the first of all talk to the commissioner cloud and director neslin. you didn't say what percentage of the wells would be hydraulically fracked been have a percentage of the state of oklahoma and colorado there would be using that technology? ..

>> we initiated the first projects in oklahoma 50 years ago. there has been focused on the disposal of water, especially in pennsylvania. tell us how this water is disposed of in your states. >> in colorado, a majority is recycled to be reused. if we're talking about final disposal, about 60% is 3 injected deep underground -- re- injected deep underground. about 20% is evaporated.

about 20% is discharged under water quality permits. >> in oklahoma, we recycle most of the water. we have 10,500 injection wells that we put the fluids down in. >> it is roughly the same as in colorado. how do your agencies investigate groundwater complaints? your agency recently investigated complaints in southern colorado. >> this is the event that led to the hearing this last the board. we got a complaint. we had an inspector on site within 16 hours. he has a ph.d. in chemistry and 25 years of experience peace and over 40 hours investigating the alleged contamination. he worked with our staff and

wrote a 30 page report documenting his investigation and the types of analysis used. when the land owner was dissatisfied with the conclusions the staff had drawn, that there would have been no impact from hydraulic fracturing, he received a full hearing before our commission within 60 days. our commission unanimously affirmed the staff findings. in terms of the analysis and timeliness and transparency, this compares very well. >> it is about the same in oklahoma. ahoma quite >> it is about the same, senator. given extensive field staff better over the state monitoring the boats as well as dvd. >> and then i only have about to be second class. i ke to have you talked about new technologies coming along. is there a procedure they can find to commissioner cloud,

where you investigate these new technologies and what dangers, and what to do to mitigate these? >> as i said, our staff is i'm p of it allthe time. if anybody has a complaint in colorado, we are 24 hours accessle and we try to stay on top of every single instance. >> thank you very much. dr. volz, there's a very negative article in the pittsburgh tribune review yesterday that i'm sure that you have read it now. i'd like to ask that be made a part of the record. >> that objectionable be included in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> sunder merkley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. neslin, to listen to your testimony so that there's never been any problem in colorado and we found no verified incident of hydraulic fracting, harming

groundwater. how do we square that with the documentary are referred to earlier where mike marcum takes and pours water out of his kitchen phosphate, holds a cigarette lighter to it and after a few seconds, i quote, a ball of fire erupts out of the sink, almost enveloping marcum's head. the source for flammable water in a process called hydraulic fracting. how is escorted no incentive fracting or water. >> we investigated that very well. the fact that the willis mpleted in a cold beer information that contains what is called biogenic methane, unrelated to oil and gas development. there are published papers that the u.s. geological survey in colorado geological survey dating back within 30 years, verifying that fact that many

foreign nations there is naturally occurring biogenic methane, not attributable to oil and gas development, not released by oil and gas development. the allegations were thoroughly investigated laboratory analyses were done. the conclusion was donethis is biogenic methane ability to oil and gas development. it is based on not just the work of art status, but scientific papers from the geological surveys dating back decades. >> so basically if he had been learned is what are 30 years ago you would've had the same problem? >> yes, sir. >> interesting. thank u for addressing. and dr. volz, in your paper you refer to a long list of chemicals that are coming out f the grind treatment facility. were these brave variants, pro-mine, benzene, glycol ether, clorox and so forth, with this developed specifically to try to

basically address the challenges these slovak fluids and clean them up? >> senator, this is an older fluid treatment facility that's been in opation for about 25 years and up until about five years ago, only took care of conventional oil and gas fluid. nowadays dealing with these marsalis fluids. >> so the technology in the facility is completely inappropriate or ineffective in terms of the fullback fluids now been sent to a? >> that's right, sir. >> if we were looking at a newer facility in pennsylvania designed specifically in mind, we would find all these problems have been addressed? >> i'm not sure of that, sir. i think there needs to be very definitive review of allthe processes that are used by treatment facilities, not only in the state of pennsylvania

because wastewater from the state of pennsylvania is actually being treated by these plants and sewage treatment plants in new york, new jersey, maryland, ohio and west virginia as well as pennsylvania. >> so i may have misinterpreted pictures that were presented in your sides, but it looks like pipes coming out of the running treatment facility into a creek and just dumping all of this and effectively treated, highly contaminated dangerous stuff right into the creek on a surface in pennsylvania. is that actually was happening? >> that is exactly wt is happening, sir. there is very little treatment done at that plant except to remove some of the barium. it is precipitated with a sulfate solution in the barium is lower, still high, but much lower than in the flow backwater, butthere is many

other contaminants that are not treated by the facility at all. >> ways pennsylvania's department allowing this to be put right into the creek? >> i don't know, sir. >> thank you. >> senator sessions is the regular public good member of the wildlife committee. >> i don't know who is the next -- thank you. mr. ubinger, the federal government regulates discharge and the strings in pennsylvania regulates. maybe you'd like to answer the question on mr. volz's commented pennsylvania with discharges against alpine safety of the people in the water. >> senator, the department of environmental protection in 2010 -- >> are you familiar with this

incident? >> only from news reports out that facility. but what i was going to save the department of environmental protection formulated a statewide discharge limit for tps for strontium that became effective late last year and early this year. that standard is now in place. that standard, i think, would require newly issued permit to include that standard. it's a very stringent 500 million parts standard. one of the issuesis that the permit cycle, which is typically five years is running its cars send us far, as far as i am aware, the department does not ask anyone to accelerate revision of those events to fit the standard in place. at the import of the standard is that a number of the responsibility leaders in the industry have begun to recycle

their flo backwater by reinject tenet into new marsalis while development. ry developing statistics, i'm not sure which one is accurate, but anywhere from 50% to 90% of flow backwater -- >> in ages past ask, does it violate the clean water act and the clean water act would apply to the discharge, would it not? the federal clean water act? >> -- >> with it, yes or no? someone should stop it if it is a violation, should it not? yes or no. he has made a complaint. he's trying to get around doing it instead of stuff being hydraulic fracting around the country. we are in a serious financial problem in america. i am worried about our economy. surgingas prices make a

difference. natural gas absolutely can be an alternative to the liquid fuel we import, the gasoline. it burns cleaner. it is all-american. it is a lot cheaper. engines that use that will pay for themselves over a period of time. the president, i think, indicated recently that he was interested in expanding natural gas for vehicles. i think it has tremendous potential. too often we see in washington is the american people are suffering under highenergy prices about a year from washington is a distraction that makes those prices go up instead of down. and people are worried about it. not just i would have to say we need clean, lower-cost energy and i believe that is what tural gas is. i'd like to introduce, mr. chairman, into the record, a statement from dr. boland, director of the state of

alabama, water and gas port, a large natural gas component and probably the leading producer of coal bed methane in the country, with dozens of wells over 20 or 30 years. we have never had a problem according to dr. boland has supervised. he went further in to media reports of leaking in the groundwater allocations ound the country. he called his colleagues around the country in those days and he is concluded that he has found no incidents in which groundwater has been polluted. you know him, mr. cloud, dr. boland? >> i do not. >> he has done this since 1982 when he joined the board. he has a masters degree and doctorate in water hydrology, not petroleum engineering. but i would just offer that for the reord. just to paraphrase senator

cornyn and follow up on it, i think we've got to watch the regulations in the lawsuit don't become a 5000 cut. mr. cloud, how many fracturing wells have been -- >> 100,000. >> 100,000? i think it's five or 10,000 in alabama. >> i believe the numbers i got a million. >> it is just huge numbers and we just got to be careful this time and we desperately need cleaner natural gas, all american natural gas, keeping her wealth at home that we don't create a greater bureaucrac duplicate is the regulations that make it more difficult for us to fight back against high energy costs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. very much. i am honored to be on the subcommittee. you're a strong leader, an experienced member of congress. >> the house and senate are glad

you're here. >> thank youery much. i look forward to working with you, senator sessions. senator whitehouse. >> i wanted to ask mr. cloud and mr. neslin when deputy administrator perciasepe is your use diesel fracting under the same drinking water act. are you aware of what used this daaliment of the fracting fluid? >> senator, as i mentioned in my testimony we are currently investigating the issue. it is not complete yet. >> would it be -- let me ask you and give mr. cloud a chance to answer. >> i just want to emphasize that we do not allow correct fluids and clean through facilities through difference through were thoroughly through cycle through

your so it doesn't reach your water supply. >> is that -- you of no concern that the deployment of the fracting fluid in the world could ever reach your water supply? >> we always have that concern, buwe are shared by our practices that doesn't happen. >> between the first -- >> s., it is submitted 200 feet of o there producing so, so it can't reach and we have filled the inspectors that witness that process and what it's undergone. >> why isn't it helpful to simply know what is being used as the fracting fluid you don't have to investigate that the

company would've reported already since it's been injected into publicly an basically? >> well, some have discussed today, there isn't prior gcc and groundwater protection council initiative that is voluntary right now, where companies then it's just in its infancy but we had a great response has been outlined a little bit today for people to divulge her companies divulge the type of fluid are using. >> is there -- i them new to this issue is too much we don't do a lot of this in rhode island. but i have seen stories on the news about families whose water, for instance, is suddenly compromised and did time as association -- it associated with fracting having taken place nearby. are there different geological

differences that explain why this might be happening in other places or is there less well-developed technique or do you think this is actually not related to fracting and as a matter of coincidence. >> if i answer that on behalf of colorado, we get dozens of allegations here that water wells have been contaminated. we inspect and investigate all of those rigorously. in some cases, we have found that contamination has occurred and that it is attributable to oil and gas development, not hydraulic fracting. typically this bill, a week, might've been a failure of the cement job. in most instances are in many instances we find there's been no ontamination, that the conditions being complained of our bacterial contamination, a problem with maintaining the

water well. another invention in response to another question, there may be an impact of natural gas, but it's biogenic natural gas,, not attributable to oil and gas development. >> speaking for oklahoma, we been doing this process for a long time and there's not been one single documented incident of contamination to groundwater drinking wonders as a result of this process. >> your time is expired. >> thank you for your patient. you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all of you being here. i think you heard about some of the potential problems with the process, but also the solar shades. one of the things that mr. cloud and mr. neslin mentioned was the stronger review process. but i'd like you to do is very briefly, if you could talk about the makeup of their review teams

, the observers, of valuations and follow the procedures of stronger -- and also i believe that sometimes the epa is involved in d.o.e. you can talk a little bit about that. >> if i might begin, stronger is a unique group with one third regulators, one third environmental representatives and therefore on a studyn stronger review, one third of the review team of the observers will be fowned each of those troops. it is a collaborative process. rather than a group of issues of majority and minority positions be participants to work collaboratively to reach a common assessment and a common concsion and then it is a transparent process in which these reports re issued typically within 60 days after the reveal is computed and posted on the website publicly

available. >> mr. neslin did a good job of the makeup of the board. in one third of the people that started the review in oklahoma, the regulatory commissioner and then a critic of the domestic and gas industry in the independent petroleum association of america. the observers to the process for the sierra club and the epa and the stronger is funded partially by epa and do.e. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me thank all of our witnesses. this panel is been extremely helpful. there's still a lot of questions i think we need to deal with. as i was listening to testify, i was curious and i mght be submitting questions on this as to what precautions are taken in regards to abandon drilling sites, to make sure that they are not only safely saled, but

the impact that the vacated cavity could have on geological activities? i'm not again a geologist, but i'd be intested as to whether we are at least mindful of thes types of issues as the drill more and more wells with the amount of natural gas that we have. so i think there are questions that need to be answered and i do want to complement the states of colorado in the states of oklahoma who have taken aggressive action to protect their public health of their citizens. they think we need to learn from the best practices and we've seen some of that sort of catch on in other states. we do have a framework year between the federal government in the state government. our committee will investigate to see whether that is strong enough under existing law or whether new laws are needed. it looks like they are progressely dealing with some of the open issues on public health. you will be following up on the questions they may be asked that

it's done. to respond in a timely way. the joint hearing of the subcommittee will be adjourned. thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on "newsmakers" this weekend -- the chairman of the house armed services committee discusses the military budget and programs like the joint strike fighter, the u.s. roles in libya and afghanistan,

impending changes, and the national security team, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> to be a parent means you are trained people you cannot live without to live without you. >> the senior editor of "the weekly standard" was not prepared for "crazy u." >> nothing like that was happening to me when i was thinking about college. >> find out if this bad catches up sunday night. you can also download a ipod test online, available at c- span.org. >> now, a discussion examining the relationship between

congress and the nation's capital city from today's "washington journal." vincent gray yor of the district of columbia, newly elected. we open with this recent shot in "the washington post." capital police officers arresting, searching you and several members of the d. krfc. counsel protesting restrictions that would be placed on the city as part of the federal budget deal surrounding the poteial shutdown. you said that the financial battle, the budget battle between the congress and city of washington, d.c. is only just begun. what do you mean? guest: well, i think that the reality is that waoerbld not be involved inhis in the first place. we believe that we ought to be autonomous from the federal budget process. that we are not an agency of the federal gornment but we have been treated as such. we are not the department of justice or department of commerce or any other department

of the federal government. so, ware seeking autonomy to make t decisions about our local funds. i think a lot of people don't realize that our budget goes up to capitol hill, up to the congress to be approved. what they really approve are funds that have been raised by other people. we raise $5.5 billn a year to support the services of our city just like other states and localities do, yet unlike anybody else our budget has to be approved by the congress before we can spend a dime. that puts us in the situation where our government had to consider a shutdown when the federal government was considering a shutdown. we felt it was inappropriate and we should be given the aton my to make our -- autonomy to make our own decisions. so we are where we need to be separated. host: video of arrests last

week. a lot of write-ups focused on the artn issue. they talked about planned parenthood nationally. explaining the issue as it related to the district. guest: as it related to the district what was imposed on us is a prohibition against spending our local funds on abortion. and it is not the question of who should the authority to make the decision. host: where does this go from here in ter of the district's relationship with congress? guest: i think we will continue to look at wayswe can make the case. there have been continuing discussions throughout the week of next steps. i actually think this hasbeen a unifying, has had a unifying effect on the district of columbia. people are talking about this. they want more action. i think that again people want to focus around the nation -- want the folks around the nation to understand our plight. we are not talking about

spending federal funds. we are talking about spendg our own dollars. host: the phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen for mayor gray fom the district of columbia. he is newly elected beat the city mayor adrian fenty. what was your winning personal? gut: we got 75%. host: sixth person elected as mayor of d.c. give us more insight into how this works, home resume. what does it mean to the way you operate? gues what it means is we have some limited authority to make decisions for ourselves. but the rub comes in when every law that is passed in the district of columbia by our city council approved by the mayor has to go to the congress where each house has to adopt the resolution. they have to adopt a resolution of disapproval and has to be

adopted by the president. no other place has to be subjected to that. the same is true of our budget. what the home rule act did is give the city permission to elect a mayor. we had no elected mayor before that. also the authority to elect 13 council members. the mayor had been appointed by the president and council membersas well. host: how is the city doing financially? guest: we are doing well. by comparison to others. we have had 13 consecutive boulevard budgets. like so many jurisdictions in america we have had the effects of the recession. i have now proposed a budget projecting a $322 million deficit for the fiscal year which begins in october. i have proposed a budget that will balance that. it is a combination of reductions in the budget and some revenue increases. host: what keeps you up most at

night if anything? guest: what keeps me up most is the ability it be able to mcourselves. we -- to manage ourselves. we want to continue to have the sterling performance we have had on the financial front. our income tax secured bonds have triple a rating on wall street. i think we enjoy a wonderful reputation there and we want to continue that. host: to you yourself, not sure if you read this in "new york times" this morning and about you and your city. in washington headlines that say bad memories and they have a shot of you here upon your arrest last week. when vincent gray campaigned for mayor he promised to bring character, integrity and leadersh back tod.c. but 100 days into his tenure he is battling the perception that the administration has brought anything but because staff members have been accused of helping children get jobs in his administration and receiving inflated salaries. can you speak to the investigation into that being

accused of helping kids get jobs and receiving inflated salaries? guest: well, it happened. and it was something that i was not aware of except in one case. there was a staff member whose child got a job, it was somebody that got on the campaign. so that is not the same situation. but there were some staff members whose children got jobs. i was not aware of that. we moved immediately to address that and all three or four of them are gone. they were not young people without qualificatio either. if you look at their backgrounds and education, they were eminently qualified but the appearance that is involved in that, it was bad judgment that was exercised and i moved to address that immediately and they are gone. the salary cap iue was a matter of negotiation through the department of human resources in the city. several people were hired over the cap. the amount by which they were hired over the cap is $912 in virtually all instances.

there was a suggestion we ask the council to raise the cap. i refused to do that and work with the staff members to lower their sam religious. host: darrell issa from california chairman of the ov oversight committee is investigating the administrat n administration. what is the extent of communication between the congressman and your office, your administration? what do they want to find out? guest: i haven't had any communication with them. there was a trd somewhat also. that was the allegation of someone that he was given money during the campaign to stay in the race. and i was the one, when that story came out, i called for the investigation to look at that and that investigation is ongoing now. host: let's get our first call from our -- for our guest. ned on the democrat line. caller: i'm a very many era veteran. we are very pleased with the

mayor's election. i want to ask what his thoughts are on the closure of walter reed where there is a group of both unions with an excellent project to work with veterans coming back from the various foolish wars we have gotten into. guest: the walter reed proposal is for closure and about half of the site has been turned over to the district of columbia for development. certainly we want to work with the veterans in the city to make sure we have some kind of continuing presence of veterans activities and services at the hospital. we will control 62 acres andt will be developed as residential, as office, as retail. it will be a mixed use development. given the historic presence of military services there, especially a hospital, we want to make sure that that heritage, that legacy, is preserved. host: washington, mark, an

independent caller. caller: mr. gray, i support your financial backing of charter hools in this city. but i think you are tremendously way off on the voucher issue. first of all, you keep saying that the vouchers are not supported by d. krfpc. you have own chair of the d.c. council in support of vouchers and generally when the application process for vouchers goes through four times the nuer of that have spots. there is strong suppo in the city for school choice and it seems to me that your support of charters is not consistent with your opposition of vouchers because if you were true school

choice supporter you would understand that vouchers contribute to competition for students in our city and will help improve all schools including d. krfpc.p.s. guest: firm, i think we have some -- first of all, i think we have some of the most wide-ranging choice of any public education city in the nation. we have 52 charter schools being operated on 93 campuses and almost 30,000 students in our charter system and about 45,000 in our traditional d.c. public schools. one of the issues here is that the citizens of the city ought to decide whether have vouche. this is an approach that is being impod on the city by the congress. there's been no vot in the council of the district of columbia. there's been no proposal by me to have vouchers in the district of columbia. when president obama became the president the voucher program was ended except i and others

and the presidential supporters allowed the kids in the system to continue to finish. so we go back to who makes the decision pws what we do -- decisions about what we do. there is no place in america where a voucher program wouldbe imposed by the congress. host: here is the district clause of the u.s. constitution. it says the congress shall have power to exercise exclusive -- host: our guest was chairman of the city council of the district of columbia for ward seven. the next call is from oxford, mississippi. .

guest: our violent crime has been reduced. in the late 1980's, and the around990's, there were 400 homicides. lester, we have a four decade low. the degree of that a lot of progress in the district of columbia. we have set down with the leadership of the police department, to understand techniques they're using. also, there is no question bill

role of drugs have played so many of our cities. i think a lot of progress has been made, and this is a great example of the progress that has been made. you can see a dramatically in the reduction of homicides. host: back to the decisions regarding the potential shot down, in "the washington post" -- a seller of the city should have been ready for deeds. they learned about it through the media. let me tell you about the dirty deeds.

guest: i think what he's talking about is it's opposed to columbia. on the district of columa, spending our dollars on abortion. it goes back to the question of having the authority ourselves to make decisions about our dollars. again, i got no call. and this is something that we should have been consulted about. en you read the budget that was submitted by the president, there is a line in there that says in so many words that the district ought to be able to control its own budget. here was an instant to take that statement, turn it into reality and it simply didn't happen. host: also writes about an issue over the use of the no taxation without representation license

plate on the president's limousine. so we had seen it around the city, but it's not on the president's limousine, you've been pressing, others have been pressing the administration to do this. how come and why has it not happened in your view? guest: well, i don't know. i can't give you an answer about that. i think the president should put that on his car. i think it would demonstrate his support of the city. he did as a senator indicate he supported voting rights for a non-voting delegate. i think it would be a symbolic way of showing his support. host: let's hear from danny, a democrat in georgia. caller: good morning. mr. mayor first of all i want to compliment you on the quality of the d.c. police department. i spend about a month every week in washington. and the d.c. police are everywhere. there's an overpowering presence and you can feel absolutely safe

anywhere you go in washington, d.c. and i don't think the congress realizes h important their security is as provided by the city of washington. i think you should put an ad in the newspaper notifying al qaeda that if they want to blow up congress the d.c. police are going to look the other way and see how quick the congress reacts and gives you what you want. host: what is the size of the police force? guest: we have little more than 3,800 members. host: you mentioned tactics, perhaps technology that have dropped the crime rate. tell us more. guest: i sat for an afternoon in an effort to do an analysis. what they did that particular afternoon was put up pictures of a lot of people who have been engaged in crime. they had thorry investigated the back dwrounds of these folks and were able to show some interrelationships between them that got to the bottom of what some of the motives may have

been for the crimes in which they had engaged. they did a thorough investigation of the kinds of issues it led some of these folks to be involved in criminal activity in the first place. one of the factors was dominant in the background was school failure and truantcy. it clear we would have a chance of stepping the tide of these young people being involved in criminal activity. host: a woman named michelle reed made tons of news in this town as chancellor of education here in the district. she has now moved on. who is the new head of the education department and give us an assessment. guest: she will undergo a confirmation process by the council and hopefully will be

confirmed. she's been in the interim role since michelle reed left. she worked as deputy chancer in the d.c. public school system when michelle was there. i think also, one of the things we've done, and i'm proud to have been a part of this was had an adoptive legislation which really places an emphasis on early childhood education. we now, i think the first have universal prekindergarten services that is a seat for every 3 and 4-year-old whose families want them to be in a program. we're moving now onto infantile services. the theory being, and i don't think it's rocket science. the theory being the earlier we can intervene with these kids, especially those who may be growing up in financially and socially challenged situations, the more likely they are to be successful. the less likely they are to wind up being truant, being involved in juvenil justice or other

activities. host: back to your relationship with congress before we get back to calls. when you see the republicans on the house side, what do you see these days? guest: we see people who are opposed to the district of columbia having -- they were certainly part of opposing this on the district of columbia, the abortion prohobition. the vouchers came from republican leadership. far from vouchers and abortion, there appears to be a real resistence of giving this city an opportunity to manage ourselves. host: do you ever see a statehood vote happening? guest: i would like to think so we certainly know it won't be tomorrow. but i would like to think so. we have 600,000 people who live in the district of columbia. we pay to support our service raise through income, property and sales taxes.

in addition to that, the people of this city pay $3.6 billion. so it isn't as if we are on the public, we are working to support the federal government and do the lions share of services in our city. host: caller from vincent, virginia. michael, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how you doing? host: doing fine. guest: good morning. caller: i just wanted to say most of y'all, y'all are doing an excellent job. i want to say that i've been through washington, d.c., never stopped one time. me and my uncle and my aunt and my grandma and my mother. and anyway, just want to say like the other gentleman said, it is safe. but at one time, before the civil war, virginia owned washington, d.c.

virginia and maryland did. maryland owned the ocean side, and maryland owned the ocean side and virginia owned the land. so, that means if they ever go bankrupt, maryland and virginia can take it back. guest: i don't think it means that aall. if you go back far enough there was no america. we were part of the british empire, if you will. and the revolution freed america from what then wasronically enough taxatiowithout representation which is precisely what we have here in the district of columbia. i don't think maryland a virginia would take back anything from the district of columbia. we are now establisheds a a distint jurisdiction in america. you described it earlier as 10 square miles and that is precisely what we are. we're 600,000 people thriving,

breathing, vibrant neighborhoods raising our own money to be able to support our services. host: one viewer wants a little bit more from you via twitter. in what way does d.c. not have representation? the constitution specifies how d.c. is represented. guest: frankly it's clear we don't have representation. again, if you pay taxes that's a fundamental premise on this which nation was founded, taxation without resistence to -- we have no senator. we have no voting member of congress. a matter of fact, mrs. norton who does an outstanding job representing us in the city had a very limited vote in the committee of the whole in the congress. that authority was removed back in january when the new majority took over the house of representatives. again, we pay the taxes but we have nobody who can vote on the interest, the national interest and certainly the interest of the district of columbia. host: caller from d.c., james,

democrat, welcome to the program. caller: thank you. mr. gray, i understand you've been dealing with allegations of members of your administration. but i have friends in the department of housing who said your very son had a suspended drivers license and one even fired and was able to keep his job, where as anybody else in that position would have been fired. guest: that's ludicrous. my son has worked for th housing authority long before i became a member of the council and certainly before i was mayor and my son never had a driver. host: fairfax, virginia, rich, republican, good morning. caller: mr. mayor, i take the metro into d.c., or near d.c. every week day morning. they have a newspaper that's handed out and i take two of them.

and i hate to be the bad news reporter because you're hearing it daily, but there's articles daily, if not every other day that are reporting back on the negative, negative, negative of some of the leadership positions and how they're acting. and i know there's a lot of good workers in d.c. a lot of good. and it seems like that overshadows a lot of the good things that are done in your city. i don't know how you're going to do it, but you've got to overcome the negative and highlight the sun that often shines on thatity. so hang in there. host: let me add to that mr. mayor, "the new york times" writes that the heart of the criticism, mr. gray, a 68-year-old native washington has brought with him the aging but powerful system of pate tron age that prevailed in this city. they write both sides of the

debate say one problems that mr. gray, a relative new comer to elected politics is not ll known so people jump to conclusions, including it would not continue with past reforms. w do you shake that if that's true? guest: all i have to do is look at recent months during which i've been in office. people question whether i would continue with education reform. i think there's evidence that we would. first of all having appointed henderson to be the chancellor of the schools. and secondly despite our financial challenges that i talked about earlier, weound out from the chief financial officer that we would get $105 million for next fiscal year. i took $76 million of that and invested it in the budget of public education. i have been a proponent of public education. i will continue to be. i've talked about my top priority being a zero to 24 continuing of services in public education.

and what i've do certainly supports that. host: "the new york times" piece also points out that the city is changing demographic cli. blacks are now 50%f the population and actually dropping according to their numbers down from 70 ners in the 1970's. with more asian, hispanics and whites have moved in. marshall brown was quoted in the washington post saying quote -- tell us in your words what all that means? guest: i think we're a growing city. since for the first time in six decades the population has grown between 2000-2010. we added about 30,000 people to to the population. we have eclipsed 600,000. and frankly i look forward to this being a vibrant, diverse, breathing, living, active city.

and there's so much evidence of that. you can look at many. for something like lead certified buildings which means we are moving rapidly to be much more environmentally energy conscious. we have the most lead certified buildings in the nation at this stage. and some of the most forward thinking building standards. we've been rated as the happiest city in the nation. not sure what that means, but it sounds good. host: i was about to say, why do you think that is the case? good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. a couple of questions. how hard did you try to remichelle reed? and how much did the national teachers union give you for your campaign? guest: first of all, michelle made the decision to leave herself.

she re-signed in october. she gave us notice and we worked together to make sure there was a successor that provided as smoo a transition as we possible could. that's when henderson was appointed as the interim chancellor. now i've appointed her as the permanent chancellor and hope she will be overwhelmingly confirmed by the council. i really don't know what the national, the american federation of teachers gave to my campaign. but this was a largely locally run campaign. if you look at the volunteers who we involved in my campaign, they were local folks. so i take great pride in the fact that our campaign was run by people here in the local, in the district of columbia and clearly people who voted live here. host: we see in your bio that you were recruited at one point by two major league baseball teams.

who were they and what position diyou play? guest: i was first baseman and white sox and dodgs. host: you wound up going to college at george washington university and. more calls now. pittsburgh, kansas, don, independent. hi don. caller: good morning. i think washington has the most severe case of something we see in any state capitol or big university. it has a huge government presence that doesn't pay any tax. so finally a fee is paid by the government but in the case of washington, intrusive, pushy, aggressive measures are taken by congress for the money they pay, which is in lou of what would normally be property taxes. also washington is a central city in a large urban area. and suffer from the same ills that most of our central cities suffered from the plight of the middle class and what have you. and is luckily one of the cities that now seems to be reviving as opposed to the big russ belt

tech cities. guest: again, i appreciate the callers commentsbecause often times we're making the case that wectually pay. so he seems to be informed about the fact that the district of columbia not only supports services here in the city but also pays federal taxes in the form of $3.6 billion to the feral government to support the nations budget. again, really about half the property off the tax rolls and substancal because of the federal presence, because of the presence of non-profits and other entities that are tax exempt. given the small size geo graphically of the city, we do have an enormous challenge. so he's absolutely right in the sense that our challenge is probably greater than others. host: back to your efforts and the battle as you put it with congress and the budget.

what will these next several months look like as folks here figure out the federal budget. obviously d.c. is part of the action, part of the dete here. what will be your main focus area? guest: certainly focing on our budget. our budget now is before the uncil. it will be there for probably until the end of may, early june. and then it will move onto the congress at that stage. i think it will be focused in general on getting more in the district of columbia, but specifically focusing on the issues that have been so predominant in the last seven to 10 days. that ihow do we begin to get the authority to make myrrh decisions about our dollars here in the city. host: gay marge has been an issue out there in the district with reaction from members in congress. what's the status of that issue? guest: well, we overwhelmingly passed a law in december 2009, the marriage equality a. it went before, as all of our

legislation has to, go before the congress. there was no form reaction at all. it became law in march of 2010. we just celebrated the first anniversary of it and i think it makes us one of the most forward thinking jurisdictions in america. host: has medical marijuana been out there as well? guest: medical marijuana was actually stopped by the congress. there was an initiative that the people voted on a number of years ago. and the congress didn't even allow the results to be reported. and it was just dormant for about 10 years. we're moving forward now. we just -- i just published gutions that are both opposed and interim. we'll have five dispenseries, people holy be authorized to grow maruana for medicinal purposes and how people can

access medical marijuana are part of the regulations as well. they will have to have a prescription from the doctor in order to do that. host: we've touched upon proom a number of times. what do you think of him? guest: i'm a supporter. he knows a lot about the district of columbia. was very pleased with that. we talked about the department of homeland security coming to an area of the city that i think will have a huge effect on economic development in that area of the city. so again, while i wish we had obviously been involved more than we were with spect to these recent federal budget decisions, i was and continue to be a supporter of president obama. host: let's hear from indianapolis, charles, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i, first of all there seems to be -- why don't you just say pro and against instead of republican, democrat because most of the independents say

they're independent when in fact they are democrat or leaning that way? but anyway, when i think grade schools, about 50, 57 years ago we learned the reason the district of columbia is not a state is because it would give a disproportional power. they could shutdown roads, they could put taxes on. they could control the working of the government. physical working of the government, not the congress, but the physical working. if he really wants to be independent, then they should go back to virginia and maryland and have the federal property as the district of columbia and allow no residential housing, permanent residential housing in the district of columbia. i really don't want to see my vote in indiana deluded by not

only would they have two senators and at least one representative, but they would have the power to shutdown roads, suers, everything else that feeds into the district of columbia. host: thanks charles. yor gray? guest: well first of all i think there are certainly ways to work out the issues that the caller has cited. therare servely ways to carve out a federal presence in the district of columbia. and certainly ways to address that kind of activity that he described. frankly there are ways we could do that now. we as a police force, it works for the district of columbia with the fire department that works with the district of columbia. there are ways that one can do that. i think that really describes the situation the extreme. we're looking for the abili to be able to control those things we pay for every day. we pay for the police force, we pay for the firefighters.

we play largely for our budget. the federal funds that come into this city essentially come into this city in the same way they go into the 50 states, the medicaid program, other federal programs. we do get a relatively small amount of money to support certain thgs in the city, like efforts to stem h.i.v. and aid's and homelessness and other areas that we try to focus on. but the reality is that the lions share of what we provide in the city is always supported by the taxpayers of the city. host: jeffrey, democrat, you're on with mayor gray. caller: good morning. good morning mr. mayor. guest: good morning. caller: thanks to c-span, a pleasure to meet you and i think you're doing a great job.

someone taking a cheap shot -- i just want to say the city of washington, well when i read my paper i see violent criminals. right here in my own city. there's one that shot and killed his own son, he was a caucasian male. so you know, this tax they try to throw on us. but every time an african-american comes on you hear something like that. i think you're doing a great job and forget about violence started with slavery, jim crow, klan law, all that type of activity. so it's not like we have a monopoly on crime.

one thing i would like to ask you, when the drugs started coming into the black community, a lot of people at the time believe that it was intentionally put in the block community so they could destroy themselves. i think now all that's getting intoheir city, kids getting on weapons and things. host: thanks jeffrey. anything you want to add there? guest: no, i think what i want to simply reiterate is we are seeing a reduction of violent crime and we're working to try to stem that. we've gone from 400 homicide in the city down to about 140 plus.

obvious think that's a 140 plus too many but we'reoing in the right direction to improve the quality of life. host: you mentioned the city is not doing too bad economically. and we know the d.c. region is doing fairly welcome paired to the rest of the country. in terms of the economic downturn, what specifically has happened, if anything you've seen in the district? guest: well, we certainly saw income taxes go down. people experienced capital gains as a result. we saw a dive in the commercial property market also, which now is beginning to rebound. if you look at the new dollars that i mentioned earlier that will be coming next year, the lions share will be coming becae now our commercial property market is on the rebound. we've got office buildings that are being built. people want to be in the district of columbia and i think some of our best days economically are ahead of us.

host: caller, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is there seems to be a lot of talk about drug use, crime-related issues, and the previous caller brought this up as well. my plan or idea i would like to see addressed, why don't the government buy up a large quantity of these drugs that are being sold, poison them with something that would kill these people in a few days and redistribute it back out in the street. therefore it would automatically wipeout all the drug users, buyers and sellers without very little expenserom police and totally eliminate that crime? host: mr. mayor? guest: i don't find that to be a constructive solution. i think e progress we're making in stemming violent crime and getting drugs off the streets really is the pathway we want to continue with. host: final thought from you as yomove forward, relatively new

to the mayor's office, what else would you like to accomplish this year? guest: we've talked about public education. we've got to get our people back to work. it's interesting, we are kind of the tale of two cities. in some areas of the cities, we have unemployment as low as 3%. on the eastern end of the city we have a couple of areas where, one where i live actually in wood seven where we have unemployment that is north of 17%. and then an adjacent area, ward eight, unemployment that's north of 25%. working to get our people back to work again, working on public fety and we had a vigorous discussion about that this morning. and fundamentally fiscal stability. that's what we worked on with the budget that's been submitt to council. to get us moving in a

>> tomorrow on "washington journal" at a political roundtable. on the budget and deficit debate eain congress. the former u.s. ambassador to nato examines the alliance in libya and political on rest in other countries. and a "usa today" reporter talks about the census figures such as on may 20% of americans were working -- working. >> on tuesday, secretary of state hillary clinton said it was a historic time for the middle east and north africa -- for the first time in history there is a real opportunity for change. she spoke at the u.s.-islamic world forum. this is 35 minutes.

hillary clinton. >> that introduction. it is such a pleasure for me to join you at this first u.s. islamic world forum held in america. his highness and the people have generously hosted the forum for years and has said, i was honored to be a guest last year and i'm delighted to welcome you to washington. i want to thank martin, ken pollock and the center at the brookings institution for keeping this event going and growing, and i want to acknowledge all of my colleagues in the diplomatic corps who are here tonight including the minister of state for foreign affairs, the foreign minister of

jordan and the secretary-general of the organization of the islamic conference. over the years, the u.s. islamic world for rahm has offered the chance to celebrate the diversity muslims around the world. pioneering innovative energy solutions and preparing to host the world cup, indonesia and malaysia each offering its own model for prosperity and progress. this forum also offers a chance to discuss the equally diverse set of challenges we face together, the need to confront violent extremism, the urgency of achieving a tuesday solution between israel and the palestinians, the importance of increasing tolerance and universal human rights in all of our communities.

and i'm especially proud that this year before run as recognizing the contributions of millions of american muslims who do so much to make our country strong. as president obama said in cairo, is mom has always been a part of american history, and everyday american muslims are helping to write our story. i do not need to tell this distinguished audience that we are meeting at a historic time for one region in particular, the middle east and north africa. today, the long a red winter has begun to thaw. for the first time in decades, there is a real opportunity for lasting change, a real opportunity for people to have their voices heard and their priorities are addressed.

now this raises significant questions for us all. will the people and the leaders of the middle east and north africa pursue them new and more inclusive approach to solving the region's persistent political economic and social challenges? will they consolidate the progress of recent weeks and address long aspirations for dignity and opportunity, or when we meet again at this forum in one year or five years or ten when we would see the prospect for reform fade and remember this one is just a mirage in the desert? these questions can only be answered by the people and the leaders of the middle east and north africa themselves.

the united states certainly does not have all the answers. in fact, here in washington we are struggling to thrash out answers to our own difficult, political and economic questions. but america is committed to working as a partner to help unlock the region's potential and to help realize its hope for change. much has been accomplished already. uprising across the region has exposed myths that for too long were used to justify its stagnant status quo, you know, the myth that governments can hold on to power without responding to their people's aspirations or respecting their rights. the myth that the only way to produce change in the region to violence and conflict, and most pernicious of all, the myth that

era of its do not share universal human aspirations for freedom, dignity and opportunity to the young people reject these false narrative's. and as we know and as we have seen, they will not accept the status quo. despite the best efforts of the sensors, they are connecting to the wider world in ways that their parents and grandparents could never imagine. the now see alternatives on the satellite news, twitter and facebook and cairo. they know a better life can be within reach and they are now willing to reach for it. but these people have inherited a region that in many of these is not prepared to meet their

growing expectations. it challenges have been documented in a series of landmark arab human development reports. independently offered and published by the united nations development program. they represent the cumulative knowledge of leading the arab scholars and intellectuals. answering these challenges will help determine if this historic moment lives up to its promise. that is why this january in doha, just weeks after a desperate young tahitian street vendor set fire to himself and public protest i talked with the leaders of the region about the need to move faster to meet their people's needs and aspirations. in the 21st century, the material conditions of people's

lives have a greater impact on national stability and security than ever before. it is not possible for people not to know what is happening beyond their own small village. and the balance of power is no longer measured by counting tanks or missiles alone. now strategists must factor in the growing influence of citizens themselves, connected, organized and often frustrated. there was a time when the those of us who championed civil society were worked with marginalized minorities or on behalf of women were focused on young people and technology were told that our concerns with noble but not urgent. that is another false narrative

that has been washed away because these issues among others are at the heart of smart power, and they have to be at the center of any discussion attempting to answer the region's most pressing question. first, can the leaders and citizens of the region reform economies that are not overly dependent on zero leal exports and stunted by corruption? overall, arab countries were less industrialized in 2007 than they were in 1970. unemployment often runs more than double the world wide average and even worse for the women and young people. while a growing number of arabs live in poverty crowded into slums without sanitation, safe water or reliable electricity, a

small elite has increasingly concentrated control of the region's land and wealth in their hands. the 2009 arab development report found that these trends, and i quote, result in the ominous dynamics of the marginalization. reversing this dynamic means grappling with a second question. how to match economic reform with political and social change. according to the 2009 global integrity report, there of the country's almost without exception have some of the weakest anti-corruption systems in the world. citizens have spent decades under the martial law or emergency rule. political parties in civil society groups are subject to repression and restriction. judicial systems are far from

either free or independent, and elections, when they are held, are often linked rigged. this leads to an overlooked question. will the door to the full citizenship and participation finally opened to women and minorities? the first air and human development report in 2002 found that there and when political and economic participation was the lowest in the world. successive reports have shown little progress. the 2005 report called women's empowerment, and i quote again, a prerequisite for the arab renaissance inseparably and causally linked to the fate of the arab world. now this is not a matter of the role of religion in the women's

lives. muslim women have long enjoyed greater rights and opportunities in places like bangladesh or indonesia or consider the family law in morocco for a personal status code into nisha. communities from egypt to jordan to senegal are beginning to take on entrenched practices like child marriage, crimes and female cutting. all over the world we see living proof that islam and women's rights are compatible, but unfortunately, there are some who are actually working to undermine the progress and export a virulently antiwoman ideology to other muslim communities. now, all of these challenges from unemployment to widespread corruption to the lack of respect opportunities for women had fuelled frustration among

the region's young people and changing leaders alone will not be enough to satisfy them. not if cronyism and closed economies continue to choke off our opportunities and participation. or if citizens can't rely on police and the courts to protect their rights the region's power brokers both inside and outside of the government needed to step up and work with the people to craft a positive vision for the future, generals and imams, business leaders and democrats, everyone who has benefited from and reinforced the status quo has a role to play. they also have a lot to lose if the vision vacuum is filled by a extremists and rejectionists. so if one crucial question is how egypt and tunisia should

consolidate the progress that has been achieved in recent months. former protesters are asking how can we stay organized and involved, which will take four main political parties and advocacy coalition it will take focusing on working together to solve the real big problem facing both countries. in cairo last month i met with young activists who were passionate about their principles but still sorting out how to be practical about the politics. one veteran egyptian journalist and a dissident expressed concern this week that a reluctance to move from protest to politics what it in his words endanger the revolutions games. so he urged young people to

translate their passion into a positive agenda and to use political participation to achieve it. as the people of egypt and tunisia embrace the full responsibilities of citizenship we look to transitional authority to guarantee fundamental rights such as free assembly and expression to provide basic security on the street to be transparent and inclusive. unfortunately this year we have seen too many violent attacks from egypt to iraq to pakistan that have killed dozens of religious and ethnic minorities. part of a troubling worldwide trend, documented by the state department's annual human rights report released this past friday. communities around the world are struggling to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and tolerance of on the popular views.

each of us has the responsibility to defend the universal human rights of people all faiths and creed. and i want to applaud the organization of the islamic conference for its leadership in securing the recent resolution by the united nations human rights council that takes a strong stand against discrimination and violence based upon religion or believe but doesn't limit freedom of expression. in both egypt and tunisia we've also seen troubling signs regarding the rights and opportunities of women. so far women have been excluded from key transitional decision making process. when the women marched alongside of them through the square in the early days of the revolution , they were part of making the change that egypt was seeking. when they recently walked again

from the square to some of reed international women's day in their new democracy, they were met by harassment and abuse. you cannot have a claim to a democracy if half the population is left out. and we know from long experience that building a successful democracy is a never-ending task. more than 200 years after our own revolution, we are still working on it because real change takes time, hard work and patience, but it's well worth the effort. as one egyptian women's rights activist had recently said, we will have to fight for our rights. it will be tough and require lobbying, but that's what democracy is all about. in a democracy, and you have to persuade your fellow citizens, men and women alike, to go along the path you wish to take.

and we know that democracy cannot be transplanted wholesale from one country to another. people have the right and responsibility to divide their own government, but there are universal rights that apply to everyone and universal values that undergird a vibrant democracy everywhere. one lesson learned by transition to democracy around the world is that it can be tempting to fight the old battles over and over again. rather than to focus on ensuring justice and accountability in the future i will always remember watching nelson mandela at the luncheon he hosted after his inauguration as president welcomed three of his former jailers because to him they were as important as any keen or

president or prime minister who was there. because when he was powerless, when he was imprisoned, they treated him with dignity. they looked upon him as a fellow human being. it helped him to move beyond what he had suffered. he never looked back in anger, but always forward with hope. the united states is committed to standing with the people of egypt, tunisia and the region to help build sustainable democracy is the will to deliver real results for people who deserve them. we want to support the aspirations. on this our values and interests converge. history has shown democracies tend to be more stable, peaceful and ultimately more prosperous

but the challenge is how we get from where we are to where we want to be. so the fifth question for ross as americans is how can america be an effective partner to the people of the region? how can we work together to build and not just short-term stability, but long-term sustainable the? with this goal in mind, the obama administration began to reorient u.s. foreign policy in the region and around the world from our first days in office. we put partnerships with people not just government at the center of our efforts. the administration moves quickly to respond to the recent events and to affirm the principles that guide our approach. the president and i have spoken about this on a number of occasions most recently just late afternoon today in the

coming weeks. and we start from the understanding that america's core interests and values have not changed including our commitment to promote human rights, resolve longstanding conflicts, counter iran's threats and defeated al qaeda and its extremist allies. this includes renewed pursuit of comprehensive arab-israeli peace. the status quo between the palestinians and israelis is no more sustainable than the political systems that have crumbled in recent months. neither israel's future as a jewish democratic state, nor the legitimate aspirations of twist in the hands can be secured without a negotiated to state solution. and why would is a truism that only the parties themselves can make the hard choices necessary for peace, there is no substitute for continued active

american leadership and the president and all i are committed to that. we believe our concerns are shared by the people of the region, and we will continue working closely with our trusted partners including many in this room tonight to advance those mutual interests. we understand that a one size fits all approach doesn't make sense in such a diverse region at such a fluid time. as i've said before, the united states has specific relationships with countries in the region. we have a decades-long friendship with all rain that we expect to continue on into the future. but we have made it clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing them. violence is not and cannot be the answer. a political process is one that advances the rights and aspirations of all the citizens of all -- bahrain and we have

raised over concerns with the officials and will continue to do so. the united states also strongly supports the people loved him in in their quest for greater opportunity. the pursuit of political and economic reform that will meet their aspirations. the president salah needs to resolve the impasse with the opposition so that meaningful political change can take place in the near term in an orderly, peaceful manner. and as president obama has said, we strongly condemn the violence committed against peaceful protesters by the syrian government over the past few weeks. the president asad and the government must respect the rights of the syrian people, who are demanding the freedom that they have long been denied. going forward, the united states

will be guided by careful consideration of all of the circumstances on the ground and by our consistent values and interests. but also by something else. we believe in this region. we see no reason that it cannot be among the most progressive, prosperous, peaceful, successful regions in the world. when we look at other regions in the world that have undergone change, sometimes violent, sometimes difficult, we see no reason why this region cannot succeed. and wherever we can, we will accelerate our work to develop stronger bonds with the people themselves with civil society, business leaders, religious communities, women and minorities, we are rethinking the way we do business on the ground with citizens, and we want the citizens themselves to

help set the priorities. for example, as we invest in egypt, new democracy and promote sustainable development, we are soliciting the current proposals for my wide range of local organizations. we want partners to invest in new ideas. we are exploring new ways to use connection technology to expand dialogue and open lines of communication. as we map out a strategy for supporting the transition's already under way with the people of the region have not put their lives on the line just to vote once in an election they expect democracy to deliver jobs, sweep up corruption, ext. and opportunities that will help them and their children take full advantage of the global economy. so the united states will be working with leaders to create open, dan and again diverse economies where there can be no inclusive press release. in the short run, the united states will provide immediate

economic assistance to help transitional democracies overcome the early challenges including $150 million for egypt alone. in the medium term, as egypt and tunisia continue building the their doctor sees, we will work with our partners to support an ambitious blueprint for sustainable growth, job creation investment and trade. the u.s. overseas private investment corporation will provide up to $2 billion to encourage private-sector investment across the middle east and north africa, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. and we look forward to working with the congress to establish enterprise funds for each of the and to nisha that will support competitive markets to provide small and medium-sized businesses with access to critical, low-cost capital. our global on knorr should program is seeking out new partners and opportunities, and we want to improve and expand the qualified investment zone

which allow egyptian companies to send exports to the united states duty-free. to spur the private sector investment, we are working with partners for a new beginning, an organization led by former secretary madeleine albright can't of coca-cola and walter isaacson of the aspen institute. it was formed after president obama's cairo speech and includes the ceo of companies like intel, cisco and morgan stanley. these leaders will convene a summit at the end of may to connect american investors with partners in the region's transition all democracies with an eye to creating more jobs and boosting trade. under the auspices of the partners for a new beginning, the u.s. north africa partnership for economic opportunity is building a network of public and private partners and programs to deepen economic integration among the countries in north africa.

the past december in algiers, the partnership convened more than 400 younger entrepreneurs, business leaders, venture capitalists and diaspora leaders from the united states and north africa. these people to people contexts' had already helped lead the groundwork for the cross border initiative to create jobs, train the youth and support the start-ups and there will be a follow-up meeting later this year in morocco. for the long term, we are discussing ways to encourage closer economic integration across the region as well as with the united states come in europe and the rest of the world. the middle east and north africa are home to rich nations with excess capital as well as poor countries, hungary the country for investment, forging deeper trade and economic relationships between neighbors to create many, many new jobs. ..

>> people of the middle east and north africa have the talent. they have the drive. to build vibrant economies and sustainable democracies. just as citizens have already done so in regions long held back by closed political and economic systems. from southeast asia to eastern europe to latin america. now it won't be easy. there are many, many obstacles. and unfortunately, iran provides

a powerful cautionary tale for the transitions. the democratic aspirations by 1979 were subverted by a new dictatorship. iran's leaders have persistently pursued policies of violent abroad and tyranny at home. in tehran, security forces have beaten, detailed, and in several recent cases, killed peaceful protesters. even as iran's president has made a show of denouncing the violence against civilians in libya and other places. and he is not alone in his hypocrisy. al qaeda's propaganda has tried to yolk the region's peaceful popular movement to their murderous ideology. their claims to speak have never rung so hollow. their arguments that the only way is violent change have never

been so fully discredited. last month we witnessed a development that stood out even in this extraordinary season. colonel gadhafi's trooped turned their guns on their own people. his military jets and helicopter gun ships unleased a reign of terror against people who had no means to defend themselves against the assault from the air. benghazi's hundreds of thousands of citizens were in the cross hairs. now in the past when confronted with such a crisis, all too often, the leaders of north africa and the middle east averted their eyes or close ranks, but not this time. not in this new era. the oic, the gcc issued strong statements. the arab lead convened in cairo in the midst of all of the commotion of egypt's democratic

transition to condemn the violence and suspend libya from the organization even though colonel gadhafi held the league's rotating presidency. the arab league went on to call for a no-fly zone. and i want to thank gutter, the uae, and jordan for contributing planes to help enforce it. but that's not all. the arab league affirmed and again i quote, the right of the libyan people to fulfill their demands and build their own future and institutions in a democratic framework. that is a remarkable statement and that is a reason to hope. all the signs of progress that we've seen in recent months will only be meaningful if more leaders in more places move faster and further to embrace this spirit of reform.

if they work with their people to answer the region's most pressing challenges. to diversity their economies, open their political systems, crack down on corruption, republic the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities. those are the questions that will determine whether the people of the region make the most of this historic moment, or fall back into stagnation. the united states will be there as a partner working for progress. we are committed to the future of this region and we bereave i- believe in the potential of its people. we look forward to the day that people in the middle east, in fact, all around the world, have the freedom to pursue their own gold given potential.

that is the future that all of us should be striving and working toward. thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] >> you want me to stay here? okay. [applause] [applause] >> madam secretary, i'm quite confident that i speak for everybody here when i say that as we listen carefully to what you had to say, and we listen very carefully indeed, i think all of us appreciated that we were hearing for the first time a truly comprehensive, clear, and authoritative explanation for policy, purpose, and hope

for the arab awakening. i'm equally confident that everybody here joins me in being thankful that you would use this occasion to make these statements and draw us into your thinking and give us sense what the president will have to say in due course. i'm sure that everybody here is helpful you will be with us here in doha. please join me in thanking the secretary again. >> thank you. thank you. right down this >> let's meet another winner in this year's studentcam competition. today we go to marietta, ga., where robert johnson is a senior. hello, robert. why did you choose marijuana use, legalization, and law

enforcement as your topic? >> at the time i chose my topic, marijuana was a big issue in california with the legalization and the proposition coming up to be voted on in november. we want to see how marijuana affected our community and our state, wanted to look into it. >> what did you learn from the law enforcement orders, and and judges from hit -- with whom you spoke? >> we learned about the effect on our community on the day today and the impact on the community was far more rigid was more for reaching that i ever thought, and basically the negative impact that it had on the community as a whole. >> what are those negative effects? has that led to the introduction of other drug use in the committee? >> it definitely has. almost every officer talked about it being a gate wait drug and it leads to the introduction of other drugs and crime into

our community. it causes problems with people in their day-to-day lives. >> how do your fellow students feel about marijuana use? >> it was almost a 50-50 split. some of them don't want the government to control what they do in their own home. others see the impact that has on their fellow students when they have gotten into the drugs. they definitely want to stay away from it and don't want anything to do with it. texted you know anyone who has benefited from legalized medicinal men -- marijuana use? >> personally, i do not. benefitsee how the outweigh the negative effects that it has on our community at all. >> do you know someone who has suffered the at worst effects of marijuana use? >> i have seen people in our school go through it and i have gotten an opportunity to sit in on different drug courts and here testimonials from people about how it has torn the families apart and affected

their lives as a whole. then i see health -- about the different communities services. >> what did you learn in the process of making this video? >> i learned that marijuana has a lot of adverse effects on our community and it causes a lot of problems and leads to other drugs and crime and our community. it is something that should not be taken lightly, and legalizing it is probably not a good thing at this time, because it leads to those other drugs and crime and our community. >> would you like people to come away with after watching your video? >> i hope they will have a realization of the negative effects it has on the community and how it can lead to bigger problems. for there are some legitimate uses of marijuana, we

personally do not believe that outweighs the negative effects it has on our community at all. >> thanks very much, robert, and congratulations. >> here is a look at a portion from roberts and documentary. >> i believe we are why, if used properly for medicinal purposes, and for those who are more responsible, it could be used recreational league. >> 62% of adults used -- who use marijuana before the age of 15 used cocaine at some point in their lives. >> marijuana is what we call a law enforcement a gateway drug. it just leads to bigger things. if you develop a rapport with that, we find out where they started, and it is typically with marijuana. >> as things stand now, the more you have to buy illegal marijuana and the more contact

you have with illegal drug dealers, and the more you are around that, the more you are in desensitized to other illegal drugs. >> once you get into some of them, it is really easy to get into any of them. >> you can see the entire video and all the winning documentary's at studentcam.org , and considered -- continue the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> throughout the month of april, we will feature the winners of this year's studentcam competition. nearly 1500 middle and high school students admitted documentary's on the theme " washington, d.c. through my lens." during the program, meet the students who created them.

stream all the winning videos online at studentcam.org. >> his son's college admissions process, college rankings, and guidebooks, financial aid forms, weekly standard senior editor andrew ferguson was not prepared for "crazy u." >> it was starting to dawn on me that this was a very different process from what it was. >> find out if this that catches up, denied on "q&a". you can also download a podcast as one of our many signature interviews available online. >> last week, conservative party leader stephen harper, who served as prime minister since 2006, faced off against the three other major party leaders in the first debate of the

campaign. polling day in canada is a second, and all 300 members of the house of commons are up for reelection. this is two hours. >> stephen harper, jack layton, michael ignatieff, and in gilles duceppe. we have two hours together, and we don't want to waste too much of that time going over the rules. let's just say that the leaders know the rules and they have agreed to follow the rules and have agreed that i should enforce the rules, and so i will. our format calls for a one-on- one debate followed by a four- man debate on each of six questions. the questions came from you.

he said more than 6000 e-mail questions -- you sent more than 6000 e-mail questions. our debaters were given the broad themes of the questions, but not this specific question. they will see them at the same time that you will see them. the first to debaters will be mr. harper and mr. duceppe. mr. harper will get to the speak to the question first. the first question of the evening is on the economy. >> is it not putting more money in the pockets of wealthy politicians? >> first of all, there are no corporate tax reductions in our current budget.

we cut taxes several years ago across the board, not just for businesses, but for individuals and families. the question in this election is whether taxes should be raised back up. our position is clear. the canadian economy has been performing well, coming out of this recession stronger and faster than others. it is creating jobs. if you raise taxes, all you would do is impose costs on consumers and cause the economy jobs and hurt ordinary families. this party does not favor raising taxes. >> i would like to congratulate mr. harper for answering a question from a citizen for the first time in this campaign. discussing the economy means we have to know all the facts and figures. what happened during the g8 and g-20 summits? $15 billion was spent in correctly during those summits.

i am pretty sure we all agreed that you should release the report. will you release the report? >> first, let me say i do not have that report. the auditor general said that the document that was released yesterday -- what i tell canadians is this, and is very clear. all of the projects in that fund were all advanced by municipalities, approved by our government. every single dollar is accounted for and all those projects have been publicly disclosed and will serve those communities for many years to come. that is what we have done across the country. 26,000 such projects across the country have created jobs and build a good legacy for our communities. >> during the 2008 election year, even with the economy statement in november, it was

not an economic statement. if we had followed at that time, you would have cut a lot of expenses during a recession. we forced you to come up with a plan, but you realize that with that plan, and considering the help you gave for ontario, during the same time you gave only $170 million to the services sector. that was a real double standard. >> the reality is quite different. in november 2008, we met at the g-20 and we all agreed to have stimulus plans be rolled out across the world. canada's was among the most will largest, quickly rolled out and most successful execution of all those plans. that is why we have superior job

creation in this country. we have provided billions of dollars of support, also to the forestry sector in terms of helping businesses modernize with the technology in terms of opening markets, in terms of financial-services. literally billions of dollars all across the country, and that industry is beginning to turn the corner. >> are you telling me tonight that in that statement in november, it was a stimulus plan? are you really telling me that? >> the statement of mr. flaherty in november was the fiscal and economic update. it was not the budget. we said that all g-20 countries had agreed to put together a stimulus plan, and ours came out far faster and was rolled out for more quickly than those in the other countries. >> your force gillette.

there is no stimulus plan at all in that statement -- you were forced to do that. >> that have been good for canadian communities and for the canadian economy, and we are very proud of the work we have done. [unintelligible] >> just talked to those people instead of refusing to answer the question, and you'll see. >> we made a major investment across the country in the pulp and paper industry, and that is part of quebec. that was very well-received. they decided to vote against it in the house of commons. i fully recognize there are still major challenges in the forestry sector, but we will continue to work with the industry and continue to make investments that will make it stronger in the future.

it is a sector that canadians depend on all across the country. >> [unintelligible] giving $4.5 billion to build an electrical lines. [unintelligible] >> we have said we are prepared to support the project. has the capacity -- capacity of dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and a major ship to clean energy in that part of the country. we have been very clear, we have already done some projects in quebec, saskatchewan, and uconn and we will continue to support projects that are good for reducing climate change. >> mr. ignatieff, do you want to

start it off? >> let's get back to the question about why you could possibly make sense of $6 billion of corporate tax breaks in the middle of the largest deficit in canadian history. it is the high spending government in history of the country, and ships -- some of it has been sheer waste. this was not stimulus. this was the scattering money around to build gazebos and fake flakes, and canadians do not have confidence in your management of the economy, because you raised public money. that is the issue, and that is why the auditor general's report is saying not merely that he wasted money, but she did not tell the truth to parliament about it. -- you did not tell the truth to parliament about it. that kind of deception undermines confidence in your leadership. >> your citing a report that the are general's report said should not be relied upon.

there were all supported by the local community. taxes were reduced in this country for years ago. the question is not reducing them now. there are no corporate tax cuts. what is proposed by mr. ignatieff and the other parties is to raise taxes on 100,000 canadian businesses. they will not pay those taxes. they will pass those on to consumers and employees. an expert in this area says bette -- says that that kind of policy will cost the canadian economy 200,000 jobs and $40,000 in business investment. >> robert ask us a very straightforward question. he asked you a question. why would he be reducing corporate taxes to the biggest, most profitable companies right now, when so many people are

suffering? you try to claim that there are not any corporate tax cuts going on right now. that is simply not true, and you actually know that it is not true. he did get through, with the support of mr. ignatieff, who now pretends to oppose this thing he voted for. those cuts are still coming, and they are very, very costly. i am remembering a stephen harper once upon a time who came here to change ottawa and was going to stick up for the little guy. but you have become what used to oppose. you have changed in some way. you used to care about the environment, and now we are at the back of the pack internationally. he said he would cleanup ottawa from scandals, and now we have the most secret government we have ever had. people are charged with fraud. you said you cared about the health care system, but we have people with no family doctor. what happened? what changed?

>> mr. layton, as i said, there are no corporate tax cuts right now. we want to keep rates where they are right now. we do this for ordinary canadian families. that is our focus. that is why in our next budget will maintaining transfers for health care. it is why we wanted to eliminate the cap on medical expenses for ordinary people in the tax system. it is why we want to have incentives for doctors and nurses to go to underserved areas. the old jack layton would have supported those things, instead of forcing an election that nobody wanted. i hope the old jack layton will come back and focus on those very issues. >> mr. flaherty said he will have to [unintelligible] he said he had a list.

he said that very clearly. the population has to know what is on that list >> first of all, let's be clear. our plan to reduce the deficit does not depend on some program cuts. we have laid out in the budget. it is very clear. the international monetary fund says it is a credible and realistic plan to reach balance. we believe we can continue to find efficiencies and government to reach that faster. we are looking at trying to find five% efficiency savings over the next three years. >> mr. ignatieff, please. >> mr. harbor, we are having an election because you cannot tell the truth to the parliament of canada about the money you are going to spend on just jails

and corporate tax giveaways. that is what this viewer cannot understand. we are in the middle of the biggest deficit in canadian history. he did not tell the truth to the canadian parliament. you are the first prime minister found in contempt of canadian parliament and now you are trying to persuade as you are not cutting corporate taxes. nobody can understand why that makes sense when we are in the middle of the toughest deficit we have seen because of your waste and mismanagement. >> let's be clear. the contempt motion that you guys pushed was because you voted against us. it is not based on any realistic facts. you were determined to have an election where the public wanted an election or not. what we need to be focused on is the economy. farda's job creation is superior to virtually any other country coming out of this recession. we are making investments in training to make sure canadians

can participate in the economy of the future. these are very fundamental things to keep this country strong and make sure we can deliver affordable -- >> you have to tell the truth about the economy. the canadians don't understand why you are prepared to spend $30 billion on fighter jets, $13 billion on prisons, and $6 billion when we are in the middle of a serious deficit. the numbers don't add up. you won't be able to pay for health care. this is about the economy and telling the truth about the choices you want to foist on the canadian people. >> the current jets we have flying over libya will reach the end of their life at the end of

this decade. we need to replace those jets at the end of their life. we will not be spending a dime on these jets for least five years, and then we will be buying them for a period of over 20 years. the other parties want you to believe that by somehow canceling the jet purchase, five or 10 years down the road they can finance election promises today. it cannot do that. >> you have no idea what the jets are going to cost. >> what we know is that the billions of dollars you want to spend on these jets down the road will have to come from health care and education and child care and things that people need here in canada today. that is where the money will have to come from. >> the conservative government is the problem here. >> if i may just finish my

point. >> we can i hear when you are all speaking -- we cannot hear when you are all speaking. >> it is these right-wing proposals of deregulation and approaches to reckless policies that got us into the mess we are in, and why people cannot make ends meet today and retirement security is so much up in the air. 200,000 good paid jobs were lost that you have not recovered. your policies do not address them. >> i reject the kind of choices mr. leighton and the other leaders are trying to present, saying that we have to make a choice between men and women in uniform and health care. or we have to make a choice between employees and employers. we have balanced policies to move us all forward together. that is why canada is emerging from a global recession faster and stronger than others, because we have a balanced approach that makes investments in people when we can afford it

by keeping their taxes low. >> the question is, how much tax? could you come with facts and figures to make the population know what we are going to spend on that and how much, and for what? >> we have been very clear what the budget numbers are. the important point to remember, these are five to 10 years down the road. why is the opposition making an issue of this now? they need money today to pay for promises the country cannot afford. you cannot paper promises today by canceling an aircraft purchase fiber 10 years for not -- you cannot pay for promises today. >> if we take the corporate tax rate at 18%, we can invest in

canadian learning. we can give every single person who wants to attend college or university alerting passport. you spend that much in 72 hours at the g8 photo op. it is poor economic management. >> mr. ignatieff, you are not able to invest in health care and service and education that matter to people by raising taxes. you do that by growing the economy. that is what corporate is doing -- that is what canada is doing. the tax breaks -- we come in and raise those rates now, we will be sending a very negative signal. the foremost expert in this matter in this country says it will cost 200,000 jobs, at a time when we are creating jobs.

investment is coming into this country. >> rather than a big corporate tax cut and giving it away in million dollar bonuses, what we should do is follow the ndp plan. $4,500 the's give company that creates a new job right now. let's reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. we should be helping the small businesses. that is what used to be all about, by the way. that way we would create jobs all across this country right now. >> we have cut rates for businesses big and small. that is why the canadian federation of independent didn't -- business does not support the tax breaks proposed by many of these parties. >> you better go read your press releases, mr. harper.

>> this question is about canada on the world stage. mr. ignatieff, you get the first chance to respond to this. >> i would like to know, what is your vision for canada on the world stage? do you believe that our country should have a more prominent an active role internationally? if so, what will you, if elected prime minister, due to regain canada's positive influence in the international arena? >> go ahead, mr. ignatieff. >> canada lost its seat on the security council of the united nations. the first time ever happened. canada made a fiasco of the g8 and g-20 summits. you are right, we have lost prestige on the international stage. of all the things we need to do

on the international stage, canada's needs to stand for great values of broad, particularly defending and promoting democracy around the world. you cannot do that abroad unless you believe it and promoted at home. mr. harper has betrayed our democracy at home and i don't think he can stand up for democracy and freedom abroad. >> we just recently watched the conservative dominated senate block a bill to get affordable drug medication to africa from canada. can you believe that? it had passed the house of commons. no wonder the rest of the world is looking at canada and saying what the heck is going on? we have two parties running in this election who have flat lined our foreign-aid budget. that is wrong. if we are doing so well economically, as they like to climb, then we should be doing something about the poorest parts of the world. we should be bringing our troops

home from afghanistan. canadians were expecting that to happen this summer. instead we are now going to be there another three years. we have lost our reputation on the environment. >> brave men and women fought and died in afghanistan. you have said we ought to stay engaged in afghanistan. you cannot have it both ways. no more, at four canadian soldiers. the one thing afghans want and desperately need is security. i think is right for canada to stay in a training mission, out of harm's way, helping the afghans defend themselves. you cannot have it both ways. the one thing they need is security. i want to make sure that afghans can stand on their own feet, defend our own country, and get to school. you cannot do any of that unless you help them to defend themselves.

>> i don't agree. i don't believe this is the way forward in afghanistan. canada's voice for peace and aid and development is being lost in of this focus on the military aspect. of course we support our troops. we all do. i wish the conservatives would provide more in the way of support to our veterans. i have another issue to raise with you, mr. ignatieff. >> what are you saying? you are saying these brave men and women gave their lives, and we walk away from afghanistan and try to pretend to the canadian people that it did not happen? we are where we are, sir. i think it is responsible leadership to say let's help the afghans defend themselves for three more years. that creates the possibility for us to do any humanitarian good in that country. of course we need to focus on other parts of the world, but you cannot walk away and pretend it did not happen. >> that is the same argument we

have been hearing for years in afghanistan. we still think that a new approach is needed there. >> what do you say to our allies? >> here is the issue of want to raise with you. i have to ask myself, how can people trust what you are saying today when your actions are so contrary to what you are offering to canadians? there you were, supporting mr. harper of this massive program of corporate tax cuts, and now suddenly you or against the very ones who voted for. you helped him ram through the hst, the worst possible thing you could have done to people, trying to get things done in the bills come and then he supported him 100 times without getting anything done. you are mr. harper's best friend, and now here your offering yourself as an

alternative. >> the person who asked this question is wondering why you changed the subject. >> we are going to sustain our international engagement. mr. harper walked away from africa. i want canada back in africa, helping to deal with the hiv aids crisis, for example. last friday, this is the canada i love. i am getting on my bus. i asked a young lady what she was going to do. she said she was going to kenya to teach school. the fact that they do 150 hours of service overseas will not

money off of their student debt. that is the kind of vision of canada and the world that i support. >> unfortunately, your party was part of causing our reputation to be in such trouble, because of our massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions under the administration of your party for 13 years. of course we have had five more years now for mr. parker rejects from mr. harper. one of the most important international issues, canada is a pariah. we are not seen as being contributes or moving the agenda ahead at all. why? because of these two administrations that have been in place for far too long. >> we open up the discussion now to all four of you. >> let me talk about some of the things canada is doing in the world. obviously the training mission is going to be very important to build on the sacrifice our brave men and women have done.

haiti still need our help. we are chairing the panel on childhood health. we are getting billions of dollars invested towards helping the most needy people on this planet. we have canadians leading the united nations mission in libya. the copenhagen accord, canada was a lone voice for a while. on issue after issue, canada is engaged and contributing. all parties should support a strong role for canada in the world. >> i would say the government's foreign policy is a copy of the bush administration's foreign policy. in the past, it corresponded to

the principle of the quebec society now use. i look at the kind of foreign policy toward developing -- you are developing. they are not corresponding to your straight and narrow ideology. that kind of foreign policy -- >> what we are doing on foreign policy is making sure that foreign aid dollars go to actual services to poor people in the world, not just to conferences. that is why we are making changes to foreign aid, to make it more effective. when you talk about our values, let me just say that right now in libya and that's being commanded by a canadian. i met with their father.

they're as good quebeckers as you are. >> you wanted to go in rsh -- >> that we do remember. >> the fact remains plrks harper, you're the first prime minister in the history of canada to lose the seat we were eligible to occupy on the security council of the united nations. you spent on the g-20 summit, we had an opportunity to lead. you spent a billion dollars in 72 hours and there isn't a person in canada that can remember a substandard outcome from that summit. talking about aid agencies who work in africa, you muzzled them, shut them down. anything you can't control, you want to shut down. that's no way to build international prestige overseas. these church organizations worked in africa for 30 years with support from the canadian government. for ideological reasons you shut them down. when rights and democracy and independent organization try to represent human rights around the world gave you a little trouble, you basically destroyed the organization.

so you can't lead in this country if you show so little respect for democracy. you have to let different voices flourish. >> i just recently was at an international meeting of canadian international n.g.o.'s dealing with foreign aid. that's what the government of canada does. let me talk a minute about the g-8 and g-20. it's come up time and time again. we're in a global economy. a recess came to this country because of forces in the economy. the g-8 and g-20 have been vital to a global response to the crisis to ensure we first didn't have a great depression and now we're coming out through recovery. we set important goals in that summit including deficit and debt reduction targets for the world that canada will achieve well ahead of time. in this day and age, you're in a global economy, you have to be part of global conferences and you have to be leading those conferences. frankly, the world thinks canada is the country meet leading

global recovery. >> the world is also happening what happened to canada? why is it the government there is being cited with contempt? why is it known as the government that's so secretive and won't allow information out for its citizens? why can't we have open debates about foreign policy issues instead of having groups and organizations like right to democracy, we can go through the list, being shut down. yours is the most closed administration when it comes to discussing these issue that's we've seen some some time. let me ask you this, will you support my suggestion that we meet and arrange with the auditor general for that report on the funds for the g-8, g-20 to be released, now that it's been leaked in various versions? will you go along with that? >> i would be happy to see the real report. >> bring it out. >> bring it out. >> what are you waiting for? >> this is the auditor general's report. we encourage the auditor general to release that report. we don't like to see documents float around but the auditor

general herself says cannot be relied on. >> plr -- mr. speaker -- >> mr. harper -- >> mr. leighton has said the world is looking at the situation right now. what the world is looking at now and is saying, canada's got the strongest recovery of any country on earth and suddenly it's plunged into a fourth election in seven years can nadians don't know why. canadians don't know why we're doing this but i will tell you what we do have to do, we have to get parliament back to work, focus on the economy, passing the good measures for people who are in our budget, people we can afford without raising taxes. >> they know canadian knows why we're having an election, mr. harper. we're having an election because you didn't tell parliament the truth about your budget costs, about any of the numbers. they became unbelievable. they cannot have confidence of anything you said including on international aid. mr. oda insert aid knot into a document, falsified a document,

misled the house of commons and eventually the confidence of the whole parliament was lost. that's why we're having an election because you didn't tell canadians the truth, because you you abused democracy. that's why we're having an election. >> that's simply not correct. the numbers in our budget have been verified by private sector experts. they have not been challenged. these numbers are accurate. we're having an election because the other three political parties saw an opportunity to go after the government. that's fine. don't think canadians agree. i think canadians think we should not be focused on parliamentary squabbling and motions and these sorts of things. we should be focused on the economy. that's what we're doing. we have good things in the budget to help pensioners, to help families, to help unemployed workers, to help our manufacturing sector. these are the things parliament should be dealing with and passing. >> you said quite a few times when you were the leader that a prime minister officially the prime minister of a government

should always respect this isn't made by the house of commons by the elected members of the house of commons. otherwise that prime minister would act with no more toll. it was immoral not to respect the decision of the house of commons. >> you said that and you were right at that time. how come that now, since your prime minister of the military government, every single time you don't agree with a decision made by the house of commons, you don't remember what you were preaching at the time. i would like to have an explanation on that. >> mr. duceppe, we have run the longest minority government canadian history. we have gotten a lot of things done. we don't always agree. this government attempts to listen to all of the other parties. our recent combudget had elements. but can we say we will all agree? no, we can't whfment you're the government, you have to take responsibility for the decision and be actable to the canadian

people. that's what we're running on and that's why we're asking -- >> you didn't want to talk on what we were seeing. that's all. >> we had so many instances now where the house of commons has put forward important ideas that you have simply turned around and rejected. sometimes, and i'm thinking of our climate change bill, for example, went through the house of commons twice, and yet you used the senate, which you packed with your friends and defeated candidates and fund-raisers, some of whom are up on fraud charges now. you used that senate to defeat a bill that called for accountability of no matter which party would be in power in canada so we could have a climate change flan would actually move us forward. it's such a disrespect for democracy, mr. harper, that it really isn't acceptable. >> let me explain our position on that bill. we have been strongly opposed to that bill throughout. the reason is that bill has no measures to achieve objectives.

it sets targets. you cant cheev something by just setting a target. you can't pass a bill declaring the unemployment rate to be 2%. you actually have to have the measure that's will achieve that. when it comes to climate change, we're working internationally on the copenhagen accord, which is now is a framework to include all emitters. we're working with the obama administration on a continental approach for integrated industries. something the opposition asked for. and we're continuing through this budget to invest billions of dollars in green energy and energy efficiency. that's what -- >> you better know where you're going. you got to know where you're going if you're ever going to get there and that's what that bill is all about. you don't want us to be taking strong action on climate change. i think most canadians know that. you prefer to subsidize your friends in the big oil companies. >> gentlemen, have to be fair with the time. >> the original question was about your vision of canada and the world. you have failed to win a seat on the security council. you achieved nothing at the g-8,

g-20. you shut down every independent organization that's trying to do good in africa, asia, if it disagrees with your ideology. if we're going to have a foreign policy, it's got to be based on democratic values, respect for canadian when's they go overseas, respect for what they're trying to do. not trying to muzzle people, shut people down. let some flowers bloom here. let democracy breathe, let it live. if you're going to promote it abroad as we should, you have to respect it at home. you're a man who will shut down anything you can't control. that's the core of your vision of government. it's is hostile to the values of democracy are what this country is based. >> this is simply not true. canada is a forceful promoter of freedom of democracy, human rights at home and abroad whfment it comes to our foreign aid, our foreign aid is delivered largely through private organization and international partners. that's largely how we do it. we work with other people. >> the job.

>> the idea we're shutting them down, this is simply not based on any facts. canada, is right now, the initiative we have now on child and maternal health we've attracted billions of dollars to deal with the health problems of the most vulnerable people on the planet. we have all other countries, international organizations working with us. that's the kind of thing dan is really doing in the world, while in parliament, all we have is this mud slinging accusations, bickering back and forth. we're out there making a difference in the world. that's what canadians expect of us. >> you want less 20 seconds? >> i look at the budget in 2008/2009, $6 million. 2009/2010, $14 billion. what's the explanation? >> i'm not sure what figures you're quoting, but i can tell you this -- i can tell you this -- canada was the first country to fulfill its commitment to double its aid to africa, to double its foreign aid went have

made sure during this recession we have not reduced foreign aid but we are making the decision -- >> you're wrong with that explanation. >> to make that foreign aid more effective. the explanation is $6.6 billion check to g.m. in detroit. >> that brings to a conclusion this segment. we now go on question three, the broad theme of which is governance. this is the segment where the one on one features stephen harper against michael. let's go to our questioner from newfoundlander. is there likely whoever wins the next election will have another minority zpwhoft how do you plan on working to turn a minority parliament into a trustworthy, functioning institutions that canadians can be proud of? >> mr. harper, you have it first. >> i hope canadians do elect a majority government i think the cycle of election after election, minority after minority, is beginning to put some of the country's interest in serious jeopardy.

we will, of course, continue to do what we've done. we've been elected twice as a minority government. we tried to work with the other parties. i think if you look at our platform and programs, they reflect ideas that have come from well outside our party. but obviously in the end, the government must take responsibility for its decisions and must be accountable to canadians. that's what we will continue to do. >> sam, we're having an election this time. $30 billion on jets, $13 billion on prison, $6 billion on unaffordable tax cuts. the speaker of the house of commons held the government in contempt. this is a prime minister who shut down parliament twice. we need to rebuild our democracy after mr. harper. mr. harper cannot be trusted with the institutions of our country. it's as simple as that. this is a man who simply will

shut down anything it can't control. shut down parliament twice. if you're asking me how we rebuild democracy, it means working with other parties, listening to other people's ideas, letting democracy flourish, making sure we listen to canadians and treat them with respect. instead of replacing this system of continuous, constant control. >> you two are allowed to have at it now. >> i appreciate the tutcht. >> everybody should realize the so-called contempt motion is not a ruling of the court or speaker. it was simply a case of the other three parties outvoting us. we don't agree with that. we don't agree that is what parliament should be focused on. parliament had before it a budget. a budget that contained the next phase of canada's economic action plan that outlined important benefits for ca nad yain seniors, for workers, for entrepreneurs, for industry. that budget was well received across the political spectrum. not just by the canadian federation of independent business, municipalities, even

the canadian labor congress. that's what parliament should be working on. it is unfortunate we're at that stage but that's where we're at today. if we have a minority government, my fear is we will go through faith and sixth election. at some point cana you haven't earned a majority. majorities are things you earn. when you earn the trust of the canadian people. you haven't earned the trust of the canadian people because you don't trust the canadian people. just two weeks ago at a meeting in london, you threw somebody out of your meetings because you didn't like what was on their facebook page. there was a veat ran who wanted to get in one of your meetings and you tossed him out because you thought oh, my god, he might ask me a difficult question. this isn't strong leadership, mr. harper. this is weak leadership. what are you afraid of? why are you afraid of the canadian people? we need a leader here who

respects canadian people, renews canadian democracy, answers tough question when's he's put to it by the canadian people. what are you afraid of? >> prime minister -- >> why do you explain -- >> the prime minister i think canadians are aware that i have gone across the country not just during campaigns to meet regularly with canadians from all walks of life. that's one of the reasons as a minority government we've been able to stay in office, we stayed connected with canadians, with real challenges and needs. and i don't think this kind of political bickering, personal attacks back and forth, is frankly going to do anything for canadians. what we need to do is lay out where we're going to take the economy. that's what this government's done. we're on the right track. let's move forward. in terms of trust, i trust the canadian people. they elected us twice. if they don't, i accept that judgment. we trust the people's judgment. we ask them to take a look at all of the platforms and parties and ask themselves are these things really affordable dofment

we opportunity stay on a low tax tracker or high tax one? >> you trust the canadian people so little, when you didn't like something on a young person's facebook, you tossed them out of their meeting. when a veteran wants to ask you a tough question, you make sure he doesn't get into the hall. what kind of respect is that? you have to walk the walk here, mr. harper, and you haven't. you shut down parliament twice. you have been found in contempt of parliament by the speaker of the house of commons twice. you keep talking about parliament as if this little debating society that's a pesky interference in your rule of a country. it's not. it's the parliament of the people of canada and they found new contempt. you're the first prime minister in the history of canada for that to happen to. so you explain that to the canadian people, will you? >> that's why we're having election. canadianless make a judgment as to whether that action by your three party was valid or whether we what we should have been doing is focusing on the economy. fact of the matter is as i say,

this government has held foreconsultations with canadians all across the country than any other government in history. that's how we stay connected to canadians. we listen to canadians and also listen to parliament. parliament is where we got our mandate because we won the most seats in an international election and it's canadians to decide whether to reward that -- >> you don't listen to parliament. for six months we asked where are the numbers to justify your budget choices? it doesn't get more basic than that. that's what they put us in parliament to do to hold you to account. you stiffed parliament, mr. harper. and that's why your government lost confidence and we're having an election. it's time you showed respect for the basic institutions of the country. >> the contraries the fact that we gave all of the information to parliament. >> nonsense. >> what parliament demanded is more documents because they said the information wasn't correct. we gave more documents which verified the information we have. i understand parliament is at stage where the opposition is

not willing to take yes for an answer. that's why we're in an election campaign. what matters to people now is not the bekkering that goes on no in parliament. it's our ability to focus on what matters to them. what matters is the economy. >> i have to make sure we stay on tifmente you have to get the last word on the one on one and then mr. late en. >> you keep using this world bickering. this isn't bickering, mr. harper. this is democracy. this is a debate. it's not some pesky little irrelevance that gets in the way of your power. this is how democracy works. i ask questions. i hold you accountable. it isn't bickering. it's about time you respect it. >> jack leighton. >> people are saying an example of what's broken in ottawa. pretty clear for all to see. the question from sam i think is a very salad question. he said can parties work together on our behalf? i will bet every canadian thinks we ought to be working together

on their behalf and i believe that's exactly what we should be doing plfment harper thing that's working together is somehow a bad thing. he tries to vilify it, calls us names for even suggesting that idea. and i just think that's completely unacceptable. >> that's not correct. one of the reasons the government stayed in office five years as a minority is we have found partners on various measures, all of the various measures we brought forward. for the first time this time, all three parties decided they want to defeat the government. that's their prerogative. that's why we're before the people. but i think the government's record of running stable minority in this country is pretty clear and also leading the country through a very difficult economic time in a way creating jobs for canadians. we're asking for canadians to give us a mandate to keep doing that. >> if you stated five years the explanation, is that for a long period of time liberals want to know this is the reason why. the question was good, how can we work together?

i'm telling you the bloc was never judge ago proposal based on what made it. when it's a good proposal made, if it's good, it's good. if it's not, it's not. i do remember mr. harper in 204 was working. we met in a hotel room in montreal, remember, jack, delta and there we changed all of the rules of parliament. we wrote a letter to adrian clarkson. you wrote it, we signed it, saying if they were to lose confidence in the house, we said to the then governor general, we have other options. obviously the other options were what? run 20 members of prime minister? certainly not. i'm sure of that. the only option was you, you finish second and you wanted to be prime minister. exactly what you've asked, exactly what you wrote, that's

exactly what we signed and you went to see and meet with adrian clarkson to discuss that. now you say impossible to do so. i mean, you said something, you preached something, you wrote something and you did something else. >> we signed a letter around cooperation we did do in opposition but we were all very clear, we are not going to form a coalition. all three of us said to so in 2004. it's on the record. i was very clear. i was not going to defeat the government and try to replace the government that had won the election. >> don't rewrite history. >> the reason they are changing their stories now is because -- >> we're not changing. we're -- >> they tried to put in power the liberal party which lost the election. that's not how democracy's supposed to work in this country. i can understand why -- i can understand why you would like a scenario where you would be the one who picks the government of canada. >> exactly what you were asking

-- >> this party will never expect this mandate from you. but i will never put the government of canada beholden to a party. >> you said we have to get the other two in. >> i was in those meetings and you were ready to become the prime minister with the support of mr. guilles and myself. i walked out. h because i was not ready to make you prime minister. let's be clear. >> i still say we did so. and when you're saying there was another option in the election -- >> you said there was no possibility of a coalition between our three parties. you were clear about that.

i never said that. >> look what you wrote. >> we will have the third and fourth parties -- >> we have to be fair with the time. >> these three leaders have a problem with the coalition. i don't. i made it clear the alternative to a harper government is a liberal government composed of liberal members of parliament, bringing in a budget based on the liberal platform we will be running for. they have a problem the coalition's out for me. let's be clear. >> if there you go saying the only alternative that canadians is your party. that's the kind of arrogant, self-grandizement we're so used to from the liberals. really it's the least attractive aspect from your party. fact is canadians, here in canada, canadians decide who will be the prime minister, not you and not your party. >> jack, i respect the voters too torch presume anything else.

i'm happy to work with you and mr. harper and i'm happy to work with mr. him. i have respect for your positions. i have respect for your leadership. i'm saying we will not go into a coalition. >> why are you supporting -- let me follow up. why are you and have you been mr. harper's best friend the last 2 1/2 years? supporting his agenda? ratifying what he wants to do time and time again? this is what i don't understand. in fact plrks harper, if it had not been for him supporting all of this time, would i have to lend him my crutch so your government could have stayed in power. this is the true story of mr. ignattias and his party. >> let me be clear. of course, parties will work together from time to time. but our position is clear. the party that wins the most seat forms the government. that's how a democracy is supposed to work f we form a minority, i would be honored once again to govern canadians. if question do not win the

election, the conservative party will not govern this country. he will say he will go and willing to accept a mandate from the other parties to govern. the party that wins the election has to govern. otherwise, we will have a party dedicated the breakup of the country deciding who can and cannot form the government. >> mr. harper, that's completely false. if you get more seats than any other party, you request try to meet the house of commons. >> try. >> of course, have you to win the confidence of the house of commongs. if i get more seats,ly try to win the confidence of the house of commons and i will work with other parties but a coalition is out. >> it's not a matter of trying. if you don't win the most seats, don't get to form the government. >> that's what i said. >> you said the party that wins the most seats will get to try first. then you think you all get together, vote against it and replace the government. that's not how our system's supposed to work in this country. people expect the party that

wins the most seat forms the government. otherwise we'll have a situation where small parties, including the bloc party dedicated to the breakup of the country will decide which party gos into power. i don't think that's good for this country. >> yes, but when you say party who finishes with most seats forms the government, you forgot something. that party has to have the confidence of the house with a budget. if not, i mean, otherwise flozz democracy at all. and i ask you again, you wrote a letter saying, there's other option then an election if paul martin was to lose confidence. what were those options? obviously, another prime minister says there's no other option than that. >> i was clear. conservative party snot was not going to try to form government when it lost the election. that simply doesn't make any sense. we seek to get a mandate from the canadian people.

and i hope we have it again and i hope this time, i'm being quite frank, i hope it is a majority. otherwise you look at the debate we're having today, you can see we will be into a fifth election in no time at all. i'm worried that quite frankly this country at some point we're going to lose our focus on the economy, start raising taxes, start doing things that are not good for the long range interest of the country because of the short-run politics of a minority group. >> mr. harper's saying he's ready to accept were he to get a majority, and i'm doing everything i can to stop it because i would like to lead this country, despite was what mr. ignattius said, but he possibly can do it with less than 50% of canadians supporting him. that's undemocratic. we need to change our electoral system. there's something wrong with a system, a party, the party has 1.3 million votes and get 50s seats in the house and green party who gets 900,000 votes, not that far behind the bloc, they get zero seats.

it's time we have proportional representation in this country so we have the proper representation of everybody's point of view when it comes to that house of commons. by the way whirblingse we're at it, let's stop the undemocratic senate from doing what it does, and it should be abolished in our opinion, wasteful and expensive and repository for political france, let's get rid of it and test cat nadian people on that one. >> let me address that. >> mr. harper, hang on. have i to be even with the time here. -- i have to be even with the time here. >> the key issue is whether you can trust the politician with democratic authority. you're a prime minister that shut down parliament twice. you were twice ruled against by the speaker of the house of commons. you lost the confidence of the house of commons because you were found in contempt because you didn't tell the house of commons the truth. you're walking around now trying to claim the right to a majority. you haven't earned the right to a majority because you don't respect our democratic institutions. we've got to find a leader

strong enough to live and accept and welcome democratic freedom in this country instead triefing to shut it down. >> i know what your attacks are on this government. i splim don't accept the truth. this government governed through difficult times. they couldn't do that unless we respected parliament and respected the democratic process. we have a strong record on that. what we're asking in an election we didn't want, an election canadians didn't want, we're asking canadians to make the decision. do you want to have this kind of bickering? do you want another election in two years? or do you want -- >> this is a debate, mr. harper. this is democracy. >> we have measures to help our most vulnerable senior citizens. measures to give tax credits for arts problems, and extend work sharing to save the job of 300,000 workers, measures to help manufacturing sectors.

>> 20 seconds left plfment layton? >> i have to pick up on something. he said before we have to walk the walk and be a strong leader and respect parliament. i have to ask you, why do you have the worst attendance record in the house of commons than any member of parliament? if you want to be prime minister, you better learn how to be a member of parliament first. most canadians, if they don't show up for work, they don't get a promotion. >> i don't surrender to anybody on my respect for the institution of parliament and my obligation to the people who put me there. don't give me lessons about respect for democracy. >> i was there voting against these policies and you weren't in the chamber. you missed 70% of the vote. i think you need to understand a little more about how our democracy works. >> hang on. one left went have to move on oar we'll get way behind. 20 seconds to respond. >> the question question here is to get a government that respects democracy, that respects parliament, that

respects citizens. you haven't and othered a majority or even a minority. the question is who's going to replace you, mr. harper? it will be seeking a liberal government and enacting liberal policies. >> that's it. gentlemen, i have to move on. question four is about immigration and multiculturism. you have a one on one with mr. layton. and we go here to montreal for the next tape government ahead, please. >> hi. my name is jay. i'm a student here in montreal. as a leader, how do you envision the social makeup of our country in the next 30 years? where do you stand on reasonable accommodation? do you think new immigrants to countershould adopt the social practices of canadians already living here or not? >> ok. >> we have quite a detpwhate quebec on that issue and it comes in the tame of taylor

broussard. they have the multiculture system and canada does fit with wageck because we have to emigrate citizens because they are honoring our society. when guy to canada a lot of times i say i'm a local. i don't have anything against immigration. multiculturism doesn't fit with quebec. we're 2% in north america. largely anglo phones and build a society where it is without exception. >> mr. layton. >> thank you for the question. i believe we will continued ways of immigration here in canada

that we don't reproduce our population significantly to grow our economy. we will be attracting people. besides, who wouldn't want to come and live in this beautiful country of ours? i'm lucky enough to be in a family that came here from hong kong and i got marry a libyan as a result of that. thank goodness we had the kind of policies that encouraged families to come to canada. one of the most disturbing aspects of what the harper government is doing is they're encouraging people to come here as tell froirn workers. they come here alone. they're not allowed to bring their family and work for up to three years for some company and they send the money back home and then they go back home. that's not how we built this country. i say family reunification is the key thing and we now have families who have been applying to come here, to bring their mother over to canada, sometimes waiting 120, 12, 13 years. they are unable to come here. plr cases where grandparents pass away before they can come

and hold their grandchild. that is wrong. we need resources into encouraging those folks to be able to come here and be part of their family. that would be a strong priority for new democratic government. >> one thing i should say, mr. layton, i just cannot accept the will of that government to create two categories of the mechanics of that. people are comer here because they have a lot of difficulties, difficults in the economy and country. sometimes it's a question of to stay alive or die. the candles as made by the tories, a ship coming in canada, it made me remember those boat people. they came in that kind of ship. those people came, were coming from vietnam and cambodia. now they're good quebec citizens. this is a plus to the quebec society. when i see those kind of ads

identifying those people like criminals, there's no other word for that, i cannot accept that. i think we have to close that. if he has majority, we will have that kind of policy. two categories of refugees. >> i believe we will find that if mr. harper hopefully won't have power after the next election, because i have seen these policies develop over the last number of years. what we're seeing is more and more of this focus on the immigrant as some kind of economic unit. so we can squeeze as much out as we can. we don't give them the professional certification. they end up come here, brought here on the -- with the inducement that perhaps with their professional cacra densals, training as doctors -- credentials and training as doctors and professionals they come here and the door is slammed in their face. new democrats have been pushing hard for measures to be taken.

one of the most important measures is create an opportunity for one of those well-trained workers to work in a mentorship context with some canadian worker and professional who's already working in that area so they can get that canadian experience. that's got to be one of the top priorities. by the way, that would also make sure we would have a lot more doctors and medical professionals very quickly available to the 5 million canadian that's don't have medical care from a family doctor. >> mr. layton, since you recognize that quebec is a nation, then i ask you, will you then give quebec full power over immigration? and also the right to add some policy concerning inter congratulation of the immigrants? -- integration of the immigrants? would you agree quebec has the right to implement its full policy and have full power over

implaceation? of course, quebec has very extensive control over its own immigration and that's important because if we talk about quebec, i was born and raised in quebec. here's a wonderful part of our country where the french language is the language of work and it's the language of culture. >> so you agree you want to apli to all workers -- >> we have proposed that in the house for all federally regulated -- >> bill 101? >> yes. >> i want to hear you, do you agree bill 101 -- >> yes, bill 101. >> and we are taking action precisely that. >> bill 101 will apply? >> we have said those kind of -- that kind of framework should apply. for example, to workers in -- >> i'm not talking about tchiped of framework. i'm talking precisely about bill 101. should it apply to all sectors?

communication, transportation? >> you know this we have put legislation before the house of commons to do exactly what you have asked. >> no, no. >> gentlemen, if i may, let me jum in here. that's the six minutes for the one on one. >> that way we can preserve the french language in quebec, which is very, very important. >> we have brought it to four leaders now. >> i want to get back to the very important question. my dad came to canada as an immigrant from russia and they arrived in quebec. the key i think to successful integration is mastery of the language. it's absolutely key that newcomers to our country -- [speaking french] that's the key language integration. one of the problems we've got here is this government, harper government, has cut settlement funding, cut language instruction, and the key to taking newcomers and taking citizens and sharing values is giving them the mastery of the

language. in quebec the french language. in other parts of the country, it will be the other official language. this government has cut settlement funding. we've broken up the process by which we take newcomers and turn them into proud citizens. the key to the future of a multiculture society to get to jay's point is the equality of rights, equality of opportunities under the charter rights and freedoms. if we stick to those principles, we'll continue to be a model and example to the world zpwfment mr. harper? >> i should just respond briefly to the assertion. this government has tripled funding with a higher interest on language because it is so important. let me answer the original question because it is on multiculturism because i think it is important. we favor multiculturism. what canadians need to understand, what we understand about multiculturism is people who make the hard decision to lead countries where they've been established for centuries or malena come here, they first and foremost want to belong to

this country. that's why they come. that's why they're here. they also at the same time will change counter. we show through multiculturism our willingness to accommodate their differences so they're more comfortable. that's why we're so successful integrating people as a country. i think we're probably the most successful country in the world in that regard. one issue that was raised was foreign credentials. in our budget is an important measure to give loans to new canadians so they can get their foreign credentials when they cant forward to take a course. that's something parliament should have been doing instead of this unnecessary election. >> first of all, that was completely inadequate program but maybe this debate will produce a much better one coming out of it. why didn't you come the immigrant settlement services? these are services that helped immigrants who arrived here to make their way and have in some cases many, many deck ides records of service here in canada. your government came in and

essentially created a situation where immigrants arrive and they just haven't got the support to do what you rather piously said you think ought to be happening. >> that simply isn't true. federal support tripled under this government. and we're the first government to maintain a vigorous and strong open door immigration policy during a recession because we're focused on the long-term interest of canada and canadian economy. look, the reason for that is -- >> we have more of them than immigrants. >> we have people coming who have jobs waiting for them. they almost invariably settle here. the government in manitoba wants us to bring people typically to fill jobs. that's why we're making some of this reorientation of the program, to make sure immigrants have work. it helps them adjust. it helps them become productive and benefits everybody. i don't know anybody would be against that. >> my dad came here with his mum

and his brothers, he came here as a family class immigrant. i sometimes worry -- if you have been in power, then i don't think you would have got in. we have to get the balance back. family cast immigration is crucial because families look after each other and stick to each other and help each other to succeed. if you put too much emphasis on temporary foreign workers weerblings get the balance right, immigration will be more difficult. and this we back up family reunification visas so you have canadian citizens saying, i can't get my mom and dad over here. that's what you have been doing, reducing family unification and that's creating basically deep unfairness and deep resentment on all of the new canadian that's i meet. >> if i knew you had been saying that, but that's simply not true. the categories across the board in terms of family class, there will be as many family class admitted this year as in the previous year. that's the government's plan. that's how we keep a strong system of immigration.

i know that -- i know you think you can score some points making these kind of arguments but they're not true. we will continue to make sure we have a strong policy that accepts immigrants for a wide variety of reasons. but particularly ensures they're able to contribute all they can contribute to our economy to be as successful as they can be. >> i think it's clear that quebec as a nation, and we're only 2% of north america, people coming to quebec to integrate themselves in french, which is the public common language. so i just don't understand why you oppose, mr. harper that bill 101, the french language be the language of work for the common sectors relying on the federal labor code. which are banks, telecom communication, transportation. all of those sectors, 300,000

people, a lot of women among them. i just don't understand why -- we don't need an amendment to do so. >> i can answer the question. we have as we've said as a government many times, we respect the division of powers in our federal constitution. it gives the federal government some powers over the labor area, gives the quebec government other powers. we have important constitutional responsibilities to the two major, to the two national languages in this country. in our area of jurisdiction, we respect that. we don't interfere with quebec's jurisdiction over bill 101. let me question what you keep saying somehow multiculturalism is incompatible with being a quebecker. there are a lot of people in this country who speak english and don't come from an english or british backround. one can retain their culture and culture identity and still integrate into the mainstream language of the community which is french and quebec and english

and most of the rest of the country. that's what we do and that's why we support these policies. >> what we're saying on that, simply because we don't want those people to enrich our culture. obviously we want that but we don't want to create vetos whfment your coming into quebec and asked to integrate with society and they're in bankruptcy in great britain, for example, and there are a lot of places. that doesn't mean that you don't want immigrants to come and to bring the lone values and part of their culture but you have multiculture -- >> the other two. >> it is the most successful immigration policy in the world. it helps canadians retain their culture while being part of the broader community. that's what we're proud of. i know the bloc wants to break up the country and you don't think new canadianless support that objective.

that's fine. >> this is not a case -- >> please. >> jack layton, please. >> i have to come back to the issue on minds with most of the families we're talking about here which is how they can bring their family members to join them here. how can we regard it as somehow acceptable that a family has to wait for ten years for their mother or father to come and join them. that is just so wrong. i think of oliva's mother, who lives with us, has lived with us for 20 years, thank goodness she wasn't applying to come here now because she might never have gotten to see my granddaughter. that's just simply wrong and it's tearing families apart y don't we make a commitment, all of the parties together to say that that's going to get fixed and we're going to make sure every family member that wants to be here as part of a loving family and building this country through that kind of love and community building, that we're going to make that a top priority. i will tell you the new

democrats will do that. >> first of all, mr. layton, we took government. it's well known there were back logs of hundreds of thousands of files in every category of immigration. we have been working to bring those down. we are admitting record numbers ever people. that's what we're going to continue to do. fact of the matter will be there fl will be far more people willing to come to-to-canada than we can admit in one year bufment we will make sure we admit as many as we can because our economy needs it, society needs it and we're all better off for it. and that applies as strongly to family class as any other class. >> i want to get back to the original question jade asked about multiculturism and how we see the future of our country as a multiculture society. i think the key thing is we have to take the politics out of multiculture here somehow. your minister of immigration has been segmenting the country into ethnic and very ethnic. it closes enormous resentment among canadians. newcomers become citizens, and the thing they want to be

treated as is a canadian. we will have a great future as a multiculture country if we work on that basis, equality of rights, equality of responsibilities, competence in the two official languages. that's a ground that will create a multiculture society. but if we starget microtargeting communities and putting one against the other the way minister kennedy has been doing, that will break up a multiculture society. >> i made it my objective since we formed the new party of canada to make sure our party is present in all cultures of this country. that's what so many of our members have been doing. it has been successful. more and more new canadians are voting for our party, obviously encourage them to do so. i think there are a lot of big conservatives but we respect the right of every party, liberal, new democrat, every party to get canadians and ethnic background.

>> gentlemen, thank you. that is the end of that segment. we go to question five, the judicial system. let's look at the tape now from british colombia. >> my name is land gold. i'm a resident of gibson b.c. my concern is safety for people in this country being able to walk down the streets at night and being safe in their homes. i would like to know what the government plans on doing dealing with the criminals and the light sentences being handed down to them by the courts. >> len, you're a lucky man if you live in gibsons b.c. first of all, here's what we shouldn't do, we shouldn't import criminal justice policies from the united states, mega prisons, mannedtory minimums failed in the united states. this is canada. we have to have a criminal justice policy that's right for canada. one of the things if we're going to be tough on crime, we have to be tough on gun. the harper government wants to

get the gun registry. this will reduce public safety. we need to insfleft crime prevention in the lower mainland gang violence is a huge problem. that may be what mr. -- our friend from british colombia is worried about. we have to give the police the tools to get tough on these drug-related gangs and lock them up as we need to. the key thing here is we have to learn from the failures of the america criminal justice policy and get tough on guns, invest in crime prevention and provide better victim services. that's being smart on crime and that would be our approach. >> another thing this government made a lot of demagoguery on the question of being tough on crime. they say they're tough on crime but mr. harper is soft on crime, even if his own office. i would say that when we look at the criminal rate, it is declining. the mod until canada would be a

gray -- important area. it seems the philosophy is more guns and big prisons and i think this is a very dangerous social cocktail. we have on the other hand to be responsible and when i look at what the law did in the past with the anti-gang law, early release would stop at one-sixth of the sentence and then twice, be let out of prison and we proposed those things. and i think that was responsible. but trying to eliminate the gun registry is an area that will affect all of the canadian and quebec society. almost everybody in quebec is saying so. >> one of the place when's i talk about let's make criminal justice policy in canada, one of the places we can learn from is quebec's policy on young

offenders. that's the kind of emphasis on rehabilitation for young offenders that we need. we've got to get balance in our justice policy. when people commit criminal violence, crimes of violence against individuals, they've got to do time. there have to be consequences for actions that threaten public safety. but we've got to give the police resources. we've got to maintain an integral gun registry. we have to work on rehabilitation for young offenders. it's not an unimportant fact that so many people in our prisons haven't even finished high school. we have to think about what that means. invest in education, make sure people get on the right path before they go up the wrong. this is the kind of balance policy we have not seen from the harper government. >> when you're talking about young offenders, i remember the first party to modify that was the liberal party and you supported it. i think that was an error denounced by the national

assembly in quebec. i think our system in quebec is good. there's a good rate of rehabilitation in quebec. one thing i'm very worried about is that mr. harper said that he won't come back on abortion, neither on capital punishment. but we all know, they don't go come with a proposal made by the government but one of the members coming with a private amendment and then supported by most of the tories, if not all of them. so it is -- one of the dampinge sers that party is in the majority in the house of commons they will use the same tactics. we don't want to talk about that but one of the members will come and see and try to make the abortion illegal and it could be the same thing -- not illegal but capital punishment to be reinstated. >> well, again, i think what mr. ducippe is refering to is also

the politics of fear here. crime sauls a serious problem. when you have been hit or knocked over or had your purse stolen or victim of personal assault, it matter to you and you want consequences. but you have also got to understand crime in our country is not increasing. the politics of fear is designed to exploit and create fear. mr. harper specializes in the politics of fear on the crime agenda. we need a balanced policy that's based on evidence, not ideology. this is the man who, you know, tried to take apart the long form census because he doesn't like facts that disagree with his ideology. we need criminal justice policy based on the facts as we see them, tough on crime or tougher sentences, rehabilitation, crime prevention, much more investment in crime prevention and more victim services, a balanced approach to this problem. >> that's the end of the one on

one. you seem to be a feature. why don't i give you the first shot out. >> and to len's question. len is right in saying canadians support and do want a very balanced system when it comes to criminal justice, that balance is tilted. rehabilitation is important. but it's also important the punishment fit the crime. we have had important bills before parliament for years. until recently the other party supported and they obviously don't. we have had mandatory penalties for gangs that involve organized drug crimes, for sexual predators. we want to repeal the case of the situation where serious criminals can get pardons automatically. we want to be able to give store owners like david chen the right to defend themselves without being charged. these are bills sitting before parliament, that parliament will not pass. i'm hoping when a re-elected conservative government gets back, what we will do is package these bills together and get them passed. this is what canadians expect us to do, take crime seriously and have punishments that fit the

crime. >> i'm glad you're supporting the legislation we proposed around david chen and in that situation, small business owner in downtown toronto. but i think the problem here is you haven't fulfilled many of your commitments. you promised there would be 2,500 more police officers for community policing but that promise was simply not kept. and policing is very important if we're going to reduce crime levels that len was talking about. similarly, we need prosecution in certain key areas. we would like to see carjacking and home invasions and the recruiting of a young person into a gang to be an offense. but most of all, we've got to focus on prevention in the first place. you've got to prevent the crimes from taking place if ultimately you will reduce crime levels the way we all want to. and that means strong support for programs for young people all over the country because if we give young people a positive choice when it comes to what they're doing after school, for example, so when some

troublemaker comes up and tries to tempt them into that life of crime with the bling and everything else that goes along with it, that they instead got something very, very positive to do. and all over this country there are people working so hard on these kind of programs, it's fantastic. they not -- not all of them can manage to access these programs through tax credits and that kind of thing. we've got to be supporting particularly those vulnerable neighborhoods and we have -- that's been a hashed tag fail on this issue. >> mr. harper says, you know, if he gets another government in the first 100 days they're going to have some giant omnibus crime bill, don't know about you but it gives me the shivers. we need balance or we're not going to get it it from the harper government. i met a young boy in winnipeg, speaking to what mr. layton said, who was poised between falling back into a gang or finishing high school. that's the critical pivot moment in crime prevention strategy. if you can get that kid through

high school within w incentives so if he gets a learning passport so he can go to college or university, you may save him from falling tpwhook a gang f you're serious about crime, we have to think about that young person and get the pivot right so he makes the right choice instead of the wrong choice. you clock people up forever in prisons. i worked in prison when i was a young graduate student. i worked with lifers. i'm utterly unsentimental about criminals. one thing i know about prison is prison makes almost everybody reduces as inmates. that's what we learned from the united states. you keep building mega systems and slapping people in the slammer with mandatory minimums, you will end up with more crime problems, not less. we have to get a joined up, adult strategy based on real evidence and that's what we haven't had from the harper government. >> mr. harper? >> we're making investments in youth crime prevention programs. in fact, there were renewal of the very programs in the budget we tabled before parliament and

yet all the opposition parties decided to combine and force an unnecessary election instead. i hope we get re-elected, are able to pass those important initiatives because they have been effective programs. but none of us that relieves us of responsibility to make sure punishment fits the crime. as len said, that is not the case in too many instances in government today. we put forward measures for parliament to deal with canadians have long said we want those passed. >> the problem with your attitude instead of debating and adding experts coming and explaining their point of views and taking time to change, some of the thing that's need to be changed, but you're trying to put everything in the same bill. just like the sentence could have been done a lot before. you were refusing just for political reasons, not to give us the credit of having proposing it. i think this is not the attitude, how to work and phase

those huge challenges of living and having in a society and adding the liberty and at the same time justice and at the same time punishing those who deserve to be punished and expecting those who are the victims. and you mixed everything with a philosophy, it's your way or no way. that's the that is the problem. you are not consulting. you to not want to debate. >> it was a conservative bill before the house. we sat down. renegotiated something we both could live with. we ended the practice where a huge number of of the underserved 16 of their

sentence and were automatically released from prison after one sixth. this is the kind of lack of -- >> jack layton please. >> i do not know why we have to have prisons when the groups are so happy in the senate. there are important issues we have not talked about. first of all, violence against women. this requires specific and direct the attention. one way that might happen is if we had a lot more women in parliament. i am pleased to say we have nominated the largest percentage ever nominated in canada in democratic party. hopefully that will help. if you talk to the leadership of the aboriginal communities, the quiet participation in housing said they do not have three and four families crammed into

completely unsatisfactory houses, with basically no hope for the future. and where did they find themselves? drifting into the temptations of crime and ultimately ending up in jail? here is the national chief, calling for a focus on education, getting clean water into these communities. it is not just in aboriginal communities, but it is terribly severe there. these are issues we have to tackle as a country. when you are giving away corporate tax so you can give million-dollar bonuses to be richest people in the country, you are not going to get down that path. >> let's look at the very shocking in shale of violence against women. it -- what that taught me and

all canadians is the crucial strategy of gun-control. you cannot talk about violence against women unless you stand up for gun control. it is no secret that before mr. harper to get back on, heaven help us, the first thing would be to get rid of the gun registry. you cannot have consistent criminal justice unless you are tough on guns. it is absolutely crucial for safety for women and the community. the reason i feel that so strongly is my constituents say we do not send a cop in the building unless we check the gun registry. it is crucial for the community. >> my position on this is well known. what he says is not true. this is a very divisive issue. we have to bring the different

parts of the country together. then again, we have been working with others. let me talk to the gun registry, because obviously we have a different view. we support strong gun orders. the of licensing of gun orders. we of registering of handguns. most high-powered weapons are prohibited in this country. but what farmers and hunters keep asking is, why every time there is a crime problem in toronto, montreal, vancouver, suddenly there is a registration slapped on in rural canada. that has not been an effective measure to control crime. every police officer has voted against the registry. we need to focus on crime and gun control. >> most of the members are in

rulers set -- rural sectors. calgary is not our rural sector. 83% of the people in the back supported gun control. 62% wanted to abolish the gun registry. the national assembly in quebec , right or left, unanimously wanted to maintain that. they want to live in a society -- even when you are hunting ducks, you have to register the ducks. the only thing that is not registered is begun. >> there are lots of people in to back to believe in strong gun-control but do not believe

in the registration of every single rifle and shotgun. we have the police association. the conservative candidate in this election does not support that. we need effective gun control, and you cannot come every time you talk about crime, suddenly talk about rules for hunters. >> it is typical for a tory candidate. it is just like in 2004. >> police across the country as they affect a comprehensive gun control is essential to public safety, keeping officers safe, and people, women particularly -- all they know is they are dead. and that matters to me. >> registration does not to any of that.

that is why the chief of the ontario prevention of -- ontario police, a conservative meant -- member of parliament. that is the last word in this segment. >> this is the final question. this is on health care. roll tape, please. >> i am patti ryan in new glasgow, nova scotia. the federal government made the promise that they would be accountable for the reductions in wheat times. that expires in 2014. what i want to know is what do you plan to do with the new accord to hold accountable for improvements in our population? >> that is a terrific question from patty.

of frightfully important question in this election. who do you trust to negotiate the next help the court? i submit to you that that is the best reason to be voting new democrats, because when public health care was created in this country years ago, and it went to a national debate, working in a minority parliament to bring our public health care system to light, one that obama tried to implement in the u.s., it is envied around the world. it needs improvement now. we have to ensure funding, and that means we have to be clear. we cannot wait until then to change what needs is -- to change what needs to be fixed. let's make sure we have home care. additional home care for families who are looking after people and get more long-term care for people now who need

them and bring prescription drug prices down. that is why i am asking for your support. >> almost all canadian families depend on our public system of health care. when the initial accord was signed, it did not have accountability measures. this is what we negotiated later. we are spending a record amount of money. we need to find ways to make this as effective as possible and help as many people as possible. we need a cooperative approach to get better results for our citizens. >> mr. harper, i have to say,

your conversion on the question of funding public health care is simply remarkable. you never mentioned anything about the budget. you were very vague about it. as soon as you realize canadians care about this, you jump on the bandwagon. i am concerned that the steven harper government would not keep our health care public, that would not expanded in two key areas that families need now. you said you were going to give tax credits to doctors in rural communities. that is not a solution. that might hit one canadian against the other, but it is not the right way to go. we are promoting action now. that is why i would encourage people to come to the conclusion

that i have come to, and that is that the conservatives cannot be trusted when it comes to the future of our health-care system. >> let's be clear about the facts. the 6% increase has been in every budget this government has brought forward, including the most recent budget. the first government that has continued the increase for health care funding instead of cutting it back. in the budget, we had some other measures. a measure for a cap on expenses. we did this as was mentioned to help doctors and underserved areas. these are important areas, i believe. i think parliament should be passing the kinds of measures. >> but the party that is a need now is really the merger party, the more extreme right-wing

party. and there have been organizations you've been involved with over the years that not been supportive of the public health care system, that of wanted to see more privatization. to canadians, this is a key issue coming up in these negotiations. what we need to stay is we need a government in ottawa that will stand up for the public health- care system. can you assure canadians who will do that? your record -- can you explain the difference between what he used to say and what you say now? >> my record is clear. by the way, governments have experimented with all sorts of deliveries. governments have also had strikes. but the government is committed to is making sure the public health insurance is available for all canadians, that no canadian should be denied. that is a fundamental principle of canadian citizenship, that has underlined our office.

that is something i and my family have always depended on. it has had challenges, but we can make it better. >> why we see so much privatization going on today under your government? >> it is taking place all over the place. alternative service delivery is not privatization. these are services under the public health insurance program. people have access to these services. that is what we're trying to maintain. we're not going to waive the finger at provinces because of the different delivery. we are going to focus on making sure the billions of dollars was spent on health care system, we get the result for people -- >> your approach is not giving any more money to canadian families

right now for canadian doctors. >> the first thing to do is to talk to the back a talk about provincial responsibilities. no expertise at all in ottawa, and that is true. the idea that ottawa knows best is a huge error. we have to let the provinces do their work. we are trying to stay to the province of quebec, yet doctors here and there. this is not our job. we have to make sure that the provinces in tibet will have the money, but then respect the fact that they do have the expertise. that they do have the expertise.