an announcement from the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam speaker. the secretary: i have been directed to inform the house that the senate has passed with amendment the t.s.a. office of inspection accountability act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman mr. cohen: would you instruct the folks that they interrupted my speech. bottom line is, planned parenthood is an outstanding organization that serve the women in this nation, my state and city. mostly low-income women and women of color and they get their basic female health care

services, whether it's breast cancer exams, sexually transmitted disease tests, family planning programs. it is not about abortion. very small part is abortion. not called planned abortion but called planned parenthood and most people are in need of those services. to cut them out as they have talked about now isn't the answer. it is going to disadvantage a lot of women and what we have had this week is a bill, the most recent bill -- did anybody discuss the idea if you would yield the fact that this second ill, the fetal -- the fetal -- i guess it's called the unborn baby bill, whatever it is, didn't go to committee.

has that been discussed? that's amazing. this bill never went to committee. in fact, it was kind of sprung on us on monday and didn't get the language straight until maybe tuesday. in the congress, we generally have committee meetings. you have a hearing on a bill, almost always. that's what committees are for. sometimes subcommittees and also by a full committee and a markup. sometimes by the subcommittee, always by the full committee and goes to the rules committee and then comes to the floor. when this congress came about, the majority party made a big deal that they were going to change the way things were going to be done. bills weren't going to be brought to the floor without any notice, committees would do their work and amendments would be offered and people get an

opportunity to testify from the public. this bill was given no markup in committee, no hearing in committee, no opportunity for the public to voice any concerns whether they were for it or against it and no congress people on the committee had a chance to voice their concerns. and the bill will have a new definition in abortion. that's a pretty major thing. and no hearing? no notice? no opportunity to address the issue? no opportunity to maybe bring in somebody who is an expert who will say, you might have missed this or that. no, because this week in congress, the republican side has said we don't want to hear from the public or doctors or women. we don't want to hear on another onl, we don't hear on judges something that affects the

federal courts where the judges review it, 8 %, no judges, no lawyers, no doctors, no women, no public, because that side of the house know how to do everything. they know how to define abortion and run the courts. they know how to run women's lives. and choice and reproduction should be a decision between a woman, her family, her onscience, her doctor. not what this side wants. they want to repeal roe v. wade and do away with a women's right to abortion. they pick these other issues to talk about. and if that happens, it's going to be no different than alcohol, prohibition in the 1920's. marijuana today. alcohol was illegal. so what happened? people got alcohol and dramping

and drank because organized crime supplied it for them. no taxes. lots of organized crime, lots of killings between organized crime. marijuana, the people have problems getting marijuana? people don't have problems getting marijuana. it is everywhere. it is at george bush's school, it's everywhere, but gives the cartel a way to sell it. it happens. when abortion was illegal, wealthy women could go to mexico or wherever it was legal and get abortions and poor people went to abortions but went to somebody that maybe didn't have have a clean area to do the procedure or the ability to do it. and health death tryments. abortion isn't going to be outlawed in this congress i

don't think. but even if it's outlawed, it's still going to happen and happen going to the rich. you can't take your morality and tell the american public when they want some opportunity, some freedom and tell them they can't have it. they'll find it in a round-about way. i thank you for having this special order. i'm going to always support roe v. wade and support planned parenthood. it does a lot for the women in my district. it is one of the best organizations in our country. they help women to services they otherwise couldn't get and a lot of states like mine, it makes it more difficult for poor women to get medical services. so thank you. we'll continue the message and continue to fight and what is

oing on here, no i voice, no message. i yield back. ms. clark: i thank the gentleman from tennessee for his words and his commitment to women and their access to health care and for pointing out the confounding thing about defunding planned parenthood is that we aren't even talking about abortion. we've already restricted that federal funding. we are talking about access to health care, to underserved women, low-income women, who are trying to get general wellness checkups, trying to have cancer screenings, trying to access health care. it is planned parenthood that fills that void in our underserved populations, in our rural areas. that is where they make a critical difference. and you are absolutely right that the messaging that this is

somehow about something else is completely hiding the fact that we are bringing bills to the floor without committee hearings. we are not being transparent and we are misleading the american public about what this debate is about. and i'm delighted that we also have another champion for working families and a great voice for the communities he serves. i yield to my colleague from california's 35th district, congressman rue ease. and i yield the gentleman as much time as he may consume. mr. ruiz: i rise in support of planned parenthood. before i ran for congress, i spent nine years as an emergency medical physician. and a 55-year-old came into my

room with a hemorrhage. after we stopped the bleeding we admitted her for diagnosis and treatment. sadly as i suspected, she had advanced cervical cancer and five months later she died, leaving her family behind. until recently, cervical cancer was the leading cause of death for women. however, over the past 0 years we have dramatically reduced the number of years. this decline largely is the result of many women getting regular pap tests which defines ervical cancer before it turns into cancer. that is what is at stake in this debate. 97% of the planned

parenthood services are not abortion related. planned parenthood provides health and wellness services, including contraceptions and cancer screenings. opponents want to turn this into a debate about abortion. but it's not. defunding planned parent hood won't reduce the number of abortions at all. this is a debate about cervical cancer, breast cancer and how many women we are going to allow to go undiagnosed and untreated. this is a debate about how many women we are going to allow to show up in emergency rooms like mine with terminal cancer too late to be saved. in california alone, planned parenthood health centers have provided over 93,000 pap tests

for cervical tests and 97,000 breast exams to help prevent deaths from breast cancer. planned parenthood saves lives. here is who loses. women in unserved areas lose, underinsured and uninsured women, and low-income women lose. planned parenthood fills that access gap and provides essential health services to those who need it the most. cutting their funding will have a long-term devastating effect on the overall health of women in our communities worsening health disparities for women across our nation. to me, this isn't a political debate, because i have seen

firsthand what happens when women don't have access to prevent tive care. women die. children are left without their mothers and children are torn apart. it is for these reasons that i oppose this misguided, mean-spirited, politically-driven measure and it is for these reasons that i stand with planned parenthood. thank you. and i yield back. ms. clark: thank you. i thank the gentleman from california for sharing your experience as a medical doctor and as someone who stands with planned parent hood. thank you for joining us. and congressman rue ease raises interesting s an point of our system of health care. part of the proposal from the republicans is, that this is easy. we can simply take the money

from planned parenthood and give it to community health centers. but there is simply not the capacity in the system to handle these extra patients. currently more than half of medicaid providers are not offering appointments to new medicaid patients. but 2/3 of the states report difficulty in ensuring enough providers, including ob-gyn care. this hurts low-income women especially hard, because 60% of planned parenthood patients access care through medicaid and/or title 10. and 35% of women view their ob-gyn as their main source of care. so what we're talking about here not abortion, but women's

health care, preventative measures that save lives. we know that over 90% of the services that planned parenthood provides are preventative. we know that they serve underserved areas. we know that there isn't enough capacity to see these patients in other settings. and that by eliminating funding for planned parenthood, would mean over 390,000 patients would no longer receive health care. if all of this sounds crazy to you, you are not alone. it's why i came down here tonight. and i thank my colleagues who join me. it is time that we reveal the falsehoods of this argument and defeat these efforts, these radical efforts that are threatening to shut down our government in order to defund

planned parenthood, that carries so much of our health care system for women in this country and especially low-income women. it's time we stand up, debunk the lies and the mysteries we are being told and let women have the healthcare access that they need and deserve. and madam speaker, i yield back the remainder of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition?

>> madam speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

>> so the thinking is if they rovide

>> you are writing about the other bill, a bill sponsored by trent franks, born alive set for debate. what does this bill do it would require health care providers to immediately transport any infant born alive to a hospital and administer the same degree of care and be subject to fines and penalties. >> before the rule debate gets under way. the white house coming out in opposition with this statement of administration policy on both policy. what don't they like? >> the white house has said both bills do something different, they would limit access to women's health care. they have issued a veto threat,

which is not surprising at all. the bills face an uphill battle in the senate. >> that issue, the issue of abortion coming up there. john cornyn's tweet, the senate will be voting soon on the pain-capable unborn protection act and the house passes those two bills. this sounds like something passed in the house earlier this year. >> the 20-week abortion ban was passed earlier in the year by rent franks.

>> i was at the game. i didn't see the debate. good morning everyone. tomorrow, as you know is september 18.

it marks the seventh anniversary of the evening -- we had a meeting in the speaker's office and my office then, with secretary of treky paulsen, the chairman of the federal reserve, been bernanke with the leadership of the house and senate, democrats and republicans. they described a meltdown of our institutions with such a magnitude that when i asked the chairman of the fed, ben bernanke, what he thought what the secretary said, he said if we don't act immediately, we won't have an economy by monday. this is an economy brought to us by the republican trickle-down economics. trickle down economics. tax breaks for the rich. if they result in trickle down and result in jobs, that would be good.

if they don't, so be it. that is the free market. those are the comments of our republican colleagues. resistance to every appropriate regulation. a trickle-down attitude that took us to a near depression, the greatest recession that we have had. the economy that president obama inherited. in january after the september 18 meeting when the president took office, you know the figures. the unemployment rate was flirting with 10% and now just over 5%. the deficit was 1.4 trillion and now under $500 billion and we want it to go lower. the stock market has gone from just under 7,000 to 1,700. 10,000 point change in the stock market. the oil industry is on its eels

and with the policies of the democratic congress and the president of the united states, the enthusiasm and ingenuity of the private sector, our auto industry is now thriving. more than 13 million new private sector jobs created in 66 months largely because of our recovery package which included tax incentives as well as investments in education and in the future. all of that is interesting and exciting. and every indicator is a positive one, but it is positive for the purchasing power of america's working families. until we understand that the stagnation of america's working families is holding up our economic recovery to the fullest extent, we won't make the progress we need to do.

middle class success is america's success for our economy. that's why this debate in congress and as we make judgments about the future, choices that the american people have to make, we have to compare trickle-down economics to middle-class economics. we are a consumer economy unless the consumer has confidence, we cannot grow to the extent that we need to. and one of the reasons that the consumers don't have confidence is because they were scarred in 2008. in some cases, the loss of their homes or homes going underwater. loss of their jobs, stagnation of their wages. questions about their pension. some living off of their savings, questions about their ability to educate their children and grandchildren. in order for us to unleash the

purchasing power, the consumer confidence of america's middle class, we must end the stagnation and wages. we must have middle-class economics. so as we observe tomorrow, the seventh anniversary of that bleak announcement by the administration, we have to shall careful that we are not -- that the public knows that these same policies that took us to this place then are the same policies that the republicans are advocating now. so again, as we go forward into this debate about their shutting down government, the whole economic debate, issues that help create jobs in our country like re-authorizing the exim bank, lifting the debt ceiling,

removing all doubt and the impact it has on the well-being of the american people. to shut down government is an enormous price for our country to pay. the economy lost $24 billion and 120,000 private sector jobs. thousands of disabled veterans, disadvantaged children, small businesses and working families paid the price for the republicans ideological games. so in any event, only six legislative days left before the start of a new fiscal year, it is important for us to sit down. as i again i showed you the letter that i sent, mr. hoyer, mr. crowley and mr. becerra sent in june. we keep repeating to sit down

and negotiate. recognizing that you are the majority and recognizing that the president has the signature and we stand ready to cooperate in a compromise as we go forward. today on the floor, instead of dealing with the economy of our country, republicans are up to some more of their -- i don't know how to describe it -- insults, lack of respect for women. too many hardworking families are feeling pinched. instead of joining democrats at the table for a bipartisan budget, the republicans are engaged in legislation on the floor that would, as i say, disrespect a women's right to choose. at the same time as i saw in california as well, wildfires in california and across the west have burned hundreds of

thousands of acres. this week in california, two citizens died. four firefighters were hospitalized. 13 firefighters have died this year fighting firefighters in the west. to fund firefighting we had to shift money from wildfire prevention to wildfire suppression. we shouldn't have to do that. prevention is essential and stop rock our prevention fund with a ipartisan fix. chairman mike simpson, there is 132 co-sponsors and the support of president obama. last congress, congressman scott peters introduced a discharge petition. had 196 democratic members

co-sponsor, sign a discharge petition, but the republicans are not bringing the bill to the floor. a previous question, democrats called for a vote on the wildfire bill on the previous question. we shouldn't have to go to that place. it should be self-evident that this bill makes sense and far more sense than any of the other initiatives that the republicans have put forward. i will take questions that you may have. reporter: republicans are now talking dealing with the planned parenthood through a reconciliation process. do you think you have the support of your colleagues to support a veto override? ms. pelosi: yes.

reporter: on the law enforcement, that seems to lower the real way to get republicans -- indiscernible] reporter: that takes it out of the appropriations process because there is money in the entitlement area. ms. pelosi: sustains the veto. actually, it would be interesting to see if they go to reconciliation, because while they don't like planned parenthood and i can attest to the fact that for decades, they have been out to get planned parenthood and they don't believe in family planning. it's hard for people to understand that. but that's what we are dealing with. this isn't about terminating a pregnancy. but most people believe that

that are family planning, most catholics overwhelmingly believe that family planning is an appropriate practice. if they are going after planned parenthood in the interest -- comfortable to do it because they don't believe in family planning, they are really achieving their other goal, which is to shut down government. i would be interested to see if they would take it to the reconciliation knowing that we can sustain the veto because they really want to shut down government. and this is really shameful. the last time they did it for 17 days, lost $25 billion. 30,000 of the government jobs are held by veterans. and so, shutting down government is the goal.

defunding planned parenthood is the excuse. but is a double purpose for them. one way or another, under the appropriations process, the reconciliation process, they are going to have to face a presidential veto and we will sustain the veto. reporter: don't you see the steps that speaker boehner is taking using reconciliation, having the separate votes before he reveals the c.r.? don't you see those as steps he s taking to avoid a shutdown snr ms. pelosi: if you say it's going to be in reconciliation or in a regular bill, it's still going to be vetoed. and look, every kind of -- ement that is being made here's the letter i have here. rom the american congress of

gynecologists. they say the franks' legislation sponsored by representative franks, this is interference in the practice of medicine and inserting a politician between a woman and her trusted doctor. the franks' bill would add unnecessary new requirements and draconian penalties to a law that is already on the books. so while we are talking about process here, let's talk about substance here, about what they are doing here. others have talked about this legislation in terms of the fact that there is no way that -- they said, oh, well, we'll have all of this being done, close down planned parenthood but have

the community health centers absorb it. that's impossible. there are over 650 planned parenthood centers in our country. i don't have that particular letter, but it is a statement that was put forth that talked go.t -- ok, here we california. for example, the community health centers association in california has stated that a federal funding for planned parenthood is eliminated, we do not have the capacity for such an increase in care and the proposal would negatively impact the health of our community. without going into an increased the best way to respect a woman's decision making on her

-- the size and timing of the family is to respect her access to family planning. as a mom and grandmother and all the rest, i respect people's views on subjects that i cannot understand that you view abortion negatively that you don't understand the value of family planning. and that's all i'm going to say. reporter: on the c.r., democrats stand to have a lot of leverage both on the c.r. and spending going forward. i wonder how you expect to move forward with this and what you hope to address with the white house, with president obama and with the leaders. ms. pelosi: i may be talking to the press after the meeting. we'll see what we decide later, but all i would say is that the subjects that i anticipate will

be on the table are how we keep government open, how we do so in a way that meets the needs of the american people and do so in a timely fashion and not up against the wall on christmas schwanza, whatever we are oaking. and we have to act sooner and remove all doubt that the government will be open and the needs of the american people will be met. it's about what is in a budget, an appropriations bill. it's about revenue. it's about investments. it's about any policy they may want to inject in terms of riders. and so that's something we have to discuss at the table with the republicans to see where we can find common ground, recognizing they are in the majority and recognizing that the president

has the signature and recognizing we have the responsibility of the american people to get the job done. so i don't know if we'll take up the subject of the transportation bill, but i certainly hope so because -- the transportation and infrastructure bill is one of the biggest jobs and immediate job generators that we could produce. but from what i see so far in the reports i have from my ranking member is we could end up with a bill coming to us and if it's a six-year bills, at the end of six years, our infrastructure is in even worst shape than it is now because of the small bar approach that we take to it. and unless the funding -- we can leverage the funding to do great things for our transportation and infrastructure. so that the budget is the one

step probably above the other step. the transportation bill and some associated matters, probably we'll take up. you would know that on this subject. reporter: along those lines, you talked a little bit about the possibility that you will have leverage in the c.r. fight and boehner will be forced to bring a clean c.r. to the floor and you will have some say. could you talk about -- you said you wanted to see a top-line number even before the c.r. votes and running out of times for that. what assurances would you want that the omnibus would not include sequestration -- what does that look like. what does the c.r. debate look like? ms. pelosi: the leverage we have is the president's veto and it's

sustained by the unity of the house democratic caucus and the senate democratic caucus. so where the leverage springs from. you would hope it comes from a balanced approach to choices we have to make. nevertheless, wherever the lverage comes from, we will accept it. i have said that in the interest of getting the job done in a timely fashion, i don't know why we have to do things -- we are going to have a c.r. and then have a number. why aren't we trying to arrive at some number that we can from day one -- to enable us to finish our work. the term of the c.r. is not to bring our work the day the c.r. begins. my purpose in saying is saying we would like to reach a number.

holy days, the pope and all of that, we can be working and communicating with each other about a ball park figure as to what we will be operating under as we go forward. the sequestration really is something that has to go. even george bush said in the bate, few minutes of the debate. but sequestration stands in the way of our strong national defense and in the way of our investments and the strength of our people which is part of the national security. sequestration is something we ve to have to strive and rid the process of and find a decent number and let's live within that a not poison riders that has no place legislating on the

bill. reporter: have you spoken with speaker boehner on the c.r. ms. pelosi: i have spoken to the speaker about when we will speak about it. e are making progress. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the house has gaveled out. but members passed a bill that imposes mandatory sanctions against lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits and they began work on two abortion bills one would defund planned parent hood for one year while congress investigates. the other measure would add criminal penalties and extend protections to an infant born alive during an attempted abortion. see the house live here on c-span when members return

tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. on october 19, canada holds its general elections with residents casting votes. we will bring you live coverage of a party leader candidates' debate hosted by the google canada. watch it live at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. today's pentagon briefing with press secretary peter cook. we'll show you as much of that as we can. >> good afternoon everybody. we don't have a lot of time because of the ceremony happening at 2:00. i'll try to get to your questions as quickly as we can. news on guantanamo guantanamo. the department of defense repatriotry ated to the government of morocco.

as directed by the executive order, the interagency guantanamo guantanamo task force conducted a review of this case. as a result of that review, he was unanimously transferred come prizing the task force. the secretary of defense informed congress of the intent to transfer this individual and determination that this transfer meets the statutory standard. the united states is grateful to the government of morocco for its support to close the guantanamo guantanamo bay detention facility and ensure this transfer took place with security. today, 115 detainees remain at guantanamo bay. the secretary will continue to deliberately consider the cases of other detainees eligible for transfer. the safety and security of the american people will remain the

secretary's top priority. at the same time, the department will remain focused on the other effort required to close the detention facility. that is the need to find a suitable location in the united states to house detainees who are not eligible for transfer. we hope assessment teams will visit more sites in the coming weeks. one other announcement. secretary carter has invited the israeli military of defense to visit washington, d.c., in late october. they will have a bilateral meeting at the pentagon which will underscore the relationship and discuss several measures. the secretary will place a particular emphasis on consultations regarding ways to further enhance israel's security and i know the secretary is looking forward to this visit. and with that. i will be happy to take your questions.

reporter: as you are aware, secretary kerry had a conversation with his russian counterpart. during that conversation, he id he wanted to have military-to-military discussions. what is the pentagon's response to that? will the secretary agree to have either conversations or discussion with his russian counterpart and are there any discussions about whether or not other military leaders, the chairman or anyone else in the region should have discussions with their counterparts. >> i don't have any particular engagement to announce at this time. we're aware of the russian interests conveyed in that conversation with secretary kerry. and secretary carter is consulting with his colleagues on the national security team as exactly the best path forward. and if there is some engagement between the secretary and his counterparts, some

military-to-military engagement, we'll let you. it is under consideration, but no consideration made at this time. reporter: what are some of the broader views of the secretary or the pentagon? secretary kerry made it clear that he used the word vital that discussions take place in order to avoid misunderstanding. does the secretary agree or disagree? >> the secretary is listening to secretary kerry and meeting today. not specifically on this issue but could see it coming up during the course of their conversation. the secretary has supported the suspension of the military-to-military conversation with the russians since he took office because he did not believe it would be productive in light of their actions in ukraine. specifically after attempts toe annex cry mia. but -- crimea.

but will engage with the russians. we are having that discussion with the national security team and we'll let you know if some sort of engagement moves forward. reporter: we went over this the other day, you said he supported the suspension of military conversations but i thought it has been made clear over the last two days while there has been a suspension of military coordination, exercises and other engagements, that none of that prohibited the secretary from conversation. i guess, has he until now interpreted that? >> the secretary has not had conversation with his counterparts since he took a position here and that again reflected in part the military-to-military discussion.

he has had discretion to do so if he felt it was the correct move to make and has always reserved the right to do so. this is a secretary who has an extensive history working cooptively working with russian officials on a range of issues. someone who knows rush -- russia well and he does president believe it would be constructive to have that conversation, would not yield positive results. the russians are asking to engage again and talking with our national security counterparts about the best path forward and again, we'll let you know when a decision has been made. and we understand the timeliness of it here, given the request of the russians and something we are taking into consideration. reporter: following up on yesterday's hearing with the general, recognizing the general's service to the

question, no question about that. general austin publicly acknowledged that the central command would fail to meet its goals in the train and equip program. he publicly acknowledged his own intelligence director is under investigation. you had to issue a major retracks on a statement he made that said special forces are not in northern syria. there is no strategic progress in ramadi that has been acknowledged. acknowledging general's austin's service to the country, nonetheless, does secretary carter have full confidence that general austin can still get the job done? is he considering the possibility of asking general austin to move on and put a new commander in place? you have replaced many top commanders in afghanistan with

much less dire circumstances on the table. what makes you think that general austin can get the job done? >> the secretary has full confidence in general austin. he has served with distinction, as you pointed out. one of the things that the secretary admires is his candor and forthrightness. you saw that on capitol hill, his testimony to the armed services committee. he enjoys the support of secretary carter and this is an effort that clearly has faced challenges. we heard directly from general austin and the undersecretary yesterday. the secretary acknowledged those challenges but he believes general austin can get the job done. reporter: coming at the same issue in a little bit different way. i have been in washington for 21 years covering the hill and the

white house and now the pentagon and yesterday's hearing was one of the most brutal hearings i have ever covered. given -- given the fact that both parties said in different waist the train and equip program is a joke, a failure, they used different words and it only spent a portion of the $5 million allocated by congress this year, will the pentagon be seeking more money, figure of $600 million has been tossed around, more money next year for the program. congress does not seem inclined to approve that money and if it will be seeking that money why does it need more money that 2/3 of the money allocated remains because the program has been going so much slowly than anticipated? >> at this point, impossible for me to tell you what budget

requests there may be for this and any other program for the next fiscal year. that's something that is under consideration for this and every other program. but this is a program that we have been candid about its problems. with regard to the resources for it, this is something that congress allocated resources for. we still see the need to support moderate syrian forces on the ground. and that has not changed. this part of the program is one of tools in the tool kit to try and make that happen. yes, this program has been under review. there has been an assessment of every aspect of the program to make sure it can be even more effective and we have acknowledged, this has not met our own expectations and the hope is to try and make adjustments to this program to make it more effective and also, to consider the other things we can do to try to bring the fight

in syria. this is one aspect of the plan. i would remind you in addition to these forces that we are trying to train ourselves, there are opposing forces in syria and numbing in the thousands. and we are giving air support and that has been effective. reporter: to follow directly on that, senator mccaskill suggested given the effectiveness of the kurdish fighters in northern syria, let's take some of the money that has not been used yet and why don't we give it to them. i'm going to ask my question, without getting into specific numbers, at this point does the pentagon, given the skepticism to use the mild term in congress, does the pentagon plan to ask, seek a renewal and continuation of this program

from congress? >> too early for me to say what the financial request would be for this program going forward. reporter: i'm not asking for the financial request. i'm asking continuation or renewal of this program. >> it's fair to say we are asking a host of questions in this program including how it's going forward with the demands of that will be. but this program in some form or fashion will continue as you heard yesterday from general austin and the undersecretary. and this is part of a larger effort to go after isil in syria. this isn't the only tool in our tool box and we are assessing those programs as well to see what is the most effective way to do this. if this has run into problems, why, can they be addressed, and does this program deserve the resourcing going into the future.

reporter: one possibility that as senator mccaskill suggested that you might decide whatever amount of money, she said $100 million is better spent on the y.p.g. there are a host of options out there and not going to get into where we are spending every dollar going forward or even our request at this point. it's too early to say what the funding request will be, whether the money will be allocated but those are the kinds of questions we are asking, the hard questions here within in this building and the best way to bring the fight to ice ill in syria. it's an important question and this is support from congress and we appreciate congress' support and continue to work with lawmakers going forward. reporter: you said you were

candid about the problem. one of the problems i'm having with, when we asked for specifics from officials here, how many people in the first class. we were told that number wasn't available and then secretary carter announced that figure on the hill. we have been asking how many of those 54 trainees, where you believe they were. and not the individual dispositions of individual fighters and we had to wait to hear it from capitol hill. in between we were told we couldn't get the nulls because it puts fighters in jeopardy and it was classified. why is it when we ask for those figures, we can't get them and wait on the hill to hear those numbers? if it's somebody's life at stake, why secretary carter can make announcements and we can't get them? >> sensitive information.

this is a conflict zone for these individuals who have been trained and equipped and it's sensitive information for me to disclose. i need to be careful about the numbers, the locations where these guys are going. obviously, this is risky business. these people are risking their lives and to be trained by the united states. i'm going to continue to be very careful about the information i convey and anyone here at the department of defense conveys with regard to their particular status. i hope you appreciate that. germ austin and the undersecretary have a separate responsibility when they testify on capitol hill to be as transparent as possible with members of congress. hey also have a -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

second live debate of the election season. the questions tonight focus on the economy. the program will begin with a preview segment before the actual debate gets under way. >> welcome to the globe and mail leaders debate 2016. please welcome globe and mail political reporter as your host. ♪ >> welcome to the globe and mail leaders debate on the economy. welcome to calgary. a very special and exciting debate. one that is focused on only one topic -- the most in issue of election 2015, the economy. no better place for this debate then where we are today in

alberta. very rarely have several election debates taking place outside of central canada, but we felt it was important to hold it in this province, which is the barometer for the country's economy. to help set the scene for tonight's event, i'm joined by familiar globe and mail faces. paul is the editor of the group on visit. kelly is one of our business reporters in calgary. adam is our national political columnist. so hello, and let's get started. we will start with adam, what are you expecting tonight, and what should we be watching for? adam: it will be different from debates past. the construct is that we see 2-3 unconvinced going card at the incumbent. -- 2-3 on incumbents -- unin cumbents going hard at the incumbent. hopefully they will get past the talking points and have to delve

into the issues. >> 30-30-30 is what we are seeing in the. what are you expecting? -- seeing in the polls. less boring was than it was last time. i was not impressed at all. i want to see some light and fire this time around. i want to see two key issues, unemployment. 1.3 million canadians out of work. a lot of people who are working or working at pretty unsatisfactory jobs. wage rates have not kept up with inflation for many years. second thing, i want to hear some serious answers on, is household debt. canadians hold of something like $1 trillion higher than average, going up at a rapid rate. that affects consumer spending and many of our economy. i want to see if they have answers to that. >> kelly, you live here in alberta and calgary. you have seen what the situation

is. what are you expecting albertans expect and hope to hear from the leaders tonight? kelly: when you are talking about economic uncertainty, calgary is a good starting point. we are seeing a lot of sleepless nights from job losses, and as oil stays lower for longer, you are seeing people worried about their mortgages, worried about their debt. albertans are some of the most indebted people in canada. people will be looking for policies that speak to them, all economics for elections. what matters is personal. they will be looking for some kind of reassurance. >> let's talk a little bit about what we have heard from the leaders so far. we will talk about the budget issue. adam, conservative leader stephen harper and thomas muller care have talked about balancing the budget. -- thomas mulcair. where are you on that? adam: i don't think it's a great

surprise that mr. harper is talking about this. we all knew he was going to run on a balanced budget. he wasn't going to be swayed from that. i don't think he is not vulnerable. i know other leaders tried to put a whole the net. realistically -- tried to poke a hole in that. what is interesting from mr. mulcair's position goes against what the liberals are running on, clearly an attempt to assure people that is not the same old. you will see more attempts to question that. they can put out a trusting document of sorts this week. the general consensus was not exactly the most complete thing, although there may be more to come. they will be questioning that. as the liberals suggested, that they are committed to austerity, or they would bring a deficit. either way you will see mr.

mulcair pressed to explain how that is all possible. >> what you think about the lawrence budget issue? -- balanced budget issue? >> i don't care about budgets. i don't think any leaders have their heads on yet. this economy is different from what it was 6-8 months ago. oil is going to stay under $50 a barrel for 5-15 years. that is a real change in the way canada is structured. they have to figure that out. that affects, already, manufacturing jobs. it is not helping her exports because everybody else is already as well. we are losing market share to the u.s. and mexico. i'm not hearing anything from these three leaders yet. i'm hoping tonight that i will, that will explain how they will address that. >> paul might not care about deficits, but i think many people do. and mr. trudeau's plan is to run-- runs, to runst

three small deficits to invest in infrastructure to stimulus the economy. what do you think of that plan? >> honestly is attempt of differentiation. keeping somewhat with the way he has been running before that. it did seem to contradict some of the things he has said before. i don't think it was a long plan to say that. i don't think it has hurt him necessarily. we have seen the polling data that people have said they are ok with some kind of deficit. >> the globe and mail talks about that they are not ok with mr. trudeau running a plan. >> i think it's a fair question of, only three years, or as mr. harper will suggest, more than that, will they be able to get out of it? -- mulcair will try to push he will also try to do the same

thing, which he has been doing a lot of the campaign trail recently. you will see mr. mulcair going at received inconsistency -- perceived inconsistency. as the economy seems to worsen, i have seen people say mr. trudeau has been the most honest about the countries finances. the oecd saying that our growth will slow down next year. the price of oil is weighing on the government's finances. >> he has not been the most clear. i have not heard a lot of details from those guys. they put out something of an economic plan, seven pages, but at least there is something there. i have seen very little from mr. trudeau in the liberals. i'm hoping to hear some more detail tonight on what exactly these plans entail. so far it has been pretty empty. >> let's talk about the issues that david worsley is going to be asking the leaders tonight.

when is about energy and the environment. kelly, you are in a good place to talk about that. what do you expect leaders to say about that, especially on the pipeline issue? harperwe know that mr. has been generally pro-pipeline. he has received criticism from other leaders for that. we have seen mr. trudeau try to walk a docent -- walk a delicate balance between the economy and the environment. in the last debate, he tried to speak to albertans and say that part of the reason you're not able to export your oil is because canada's reputation has been damaged. i don't know if that argument will play, that people really believe canada has the control over keystone xl or the ability of other countries to put pipelines or not. >> mr. mulcair approved of some pipelines and several others. >> there are a lot of folks that

they, do we really -- that say, do we really need any of these pipelines if oil is going to stay under $50 a barrel? those in the u.s. are asking those questions as well. why bother if were going to have oil sitting even lower in the years to come? adam: one of the tricky aspects, one that really matters in terms of quebec is the energy pipeline. that is one where mr. mulcair has been trying to walk a difficult balance. ndp is not sufficiently opposed to a pipeline that would go through quebec. >> energy east is going through quebec to new brunswick. adam: correct. that's a formidable -- that is a potential vulnerability for the mayor. you wind up not being firm enough to quebec, although it has not seemed to hurt him yet. those in this part of the

country would say, why are you opposed to the pipeline? paul: one things about pipelines, is that if you don't build pipelines, what do you do? you build trains, and how has that worked out for us? >> in this era of oil being under $50 a barrel, you see shipping and trade going down. a question for leaders is how they address the energy economy and whether or not they give any hope to people whose jobs are reliant on the energy sector. >> let's go to jobs. that is another big topic and focus of our evening tonight. paul, on jobs-- paul: i think the job market has changed so much from when i was a kid. you are a lot younger than me-- [laughter] but you were guaranteed hours, you were guaranteed a wage. now the part-time world is so different. you have zero hours for people waited home to be called. you have companies that treat employees of the way that they treat supply.

i will only phone suzy for work a minute before the shift. the nature of work has changed. this is all part of the shift in economy. i don't think the political parties have caught onto this just yet. >> when issue with immigration. something table be asking leaders. -- dave will be asking leaders. adam: we heard about the refugee crisis. i don't think it will be a big focus tonight. but on immigration, in terms of the difference between economic immigration and the more traditional immigration that we have done in this country -- opposition parties have been quietly playing that up in a lot of urban areas with large immigrant populations. it's a little harder than it used to be. see mr. that we may trudeau or mr. mulcair bring it up a little bit.

paul: i think they might talk about the foreign worker program, too, which got a lot of attention from fast food places. there are a lot of farmers that rely on former -- rely on foreign workers. they can't get them now. that's a big issue. >> very controversial topic. i will ask you guys-- paul: in my mind, trudeau has the most to lose. i thought he looked like a high school kid. however, i also think he has the most to gain if he can at least show he is a credible position. he knows his facts and figures about the economy. in my mind, he is starting from a negative base. however i think harper has a lot to lose as well. this is his town, this is his debate. these are his issues. if you can't come out of this is a clear winner, he has a problem. >> don't sit on the fence like paul. kelly, can you tell us who you think has the most to lose? [laughter] kelly: i think harper has the

most to lose if he has anything less than a stellar important -- stellar performance. justin trudeau will be higher this time. air will have to explain his fiscal policy and those will ask for more details. it will be a problem for him if he can't shore up those details. adam: i thought he was on balance, fairly good. [indiscernible] >> the bar was so low-- adam: the bar was definitely low for trudeau. i agree that he has the most to lose. i think the expectations are higher rates now. i think the other parties have a real incentive to go hard at him. the liberals have moved up to a point which neither parties can become for with, hovering around -- parties can become comfortable with. it's not necessarily about

having him on the defensive for an hour and a half. i hope that every voter in the country watching tonight, some will not watch it live. what you have to do, if you are the other leaders, create a clip, even if it's only a couple seconds. you can be defined by a few seconds. mr. trudeau may be more susceptible to that, just a quick offhand comment that can define his performance. paul: it's terrible for harper. kelly: justin trudeau will have to prove the differentiation strategy will work for him. >> so he has to ace the debate, you were saying? paul: mr. trudeau at least has to do well. hadink mr. mulcair -- he trouble getting the right tone. [indiscernible] showing you comes out

he has his head around the economy, he is fine. >> he has to provide more details. >> i want to thank you very much. thanks kelly, paul, and adam. in just a moment, the main event. the three federal leaders. first, let's hear what canadians are thinking about the economy. >> this election is about our economy, growing the economy. >> the canadian economy will grow for the seventh straight year. >> clearly mr. harper, your plan is not working. >> this is a tougher economy than it needs to be. >> the economy. >> our economy. >> my biggest concern about the community and economy-- >> we continue to focus on the oil and gas sector. >> i will be able to afford properties in the city i want to live in. >> i'm worried about adequate

retirement income. >> stable opportunities for employment for young people. >> getting canada off oil. >> the economy is the most critical ballot bust issue in the election, making it the clear choice for the sole topic of the globe and mail's 2015 leaders debate. >> get the economy on track. >> turn this economy around. >> if businesses were able to employ young people on a full-time basis with meaningful living wages, what are you going to do to help those companies remain competitive in a global economy? >> the baby boomers, the largest group isenching -- age transitioning into retirement. >> given the widening gap

between the wealthy and the rest of us, what specific measures will your government take to address this important issue? >> i grew up thinking the best investment you can make is in property. my parents did it, my grandparents did it, and now i am not able to. >> this would be a perfect time to make bold investments in our collective future. >> now, please welcome tonight's debate moderator, globe and mail editor and chief david ones like-- ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the globe and mail debate on the economy. we are coming to you live from calgary with a studio audience. they join you, our viewing audience, the next 90 minutes as we discussed the key issues of this 2015 campaign. let's welcome the three party leaders here tonight. from the conservative party, stephen harper.

from the new democratic party, thomas mulcair. and from the liberal party, just introduced. -- justin trudeau. [applause] this election is about the economy. all parties, i think, can at least agree with that. with the country struggling to find its economic mojo, we have top questions for leaders this evening. the first half deals with six topics -- jobs, energy and the environment, infrastructure, immigration, housing, and taxation. each area will begin with the question from me to one of the three leaders with a follow-up question. i will then push the question to a second leader for a quick answer before an open for debate. none of the three leaders has advanced knowledge of the questions. the order of speaking and positions on the stage were

randomly drawn with party representatives. that's the housekeeping. let's begin. the reason we are here tonight is to come to grips with this country's challenges. the first question goes to you, mr. harper. the question is on jobs. structural,cing rather than cyclical change. do you have a jobs plan for industry, beyond taking things out of the ground? p.m. harper: absolutely david. if you don't mind, let me begin saying because we are in a southern alberta, i want to take a moment to give my condolences to the bloodshed in the dunbar families, on the terrible deaths of haley into terry. these were obviously senseless acts. our thoughts and prayers are with those families. approach isid, our multifaceted. there are several things we are doing. obviously the centerpiece of a plan is to make sure -- we are

making practical investments that are affordable, that we can do while keeping our taxes down and keeping our budget balanced. for instance, particular interventions into the labor market to make sure we are training people for the available jobs, orienting immigration policies that way, encouraging innovation in manufacturing, opening up trade markets. we signed more trade agreements than ever before. the core to protecting our economy is making sure that our budgets remain balanced. host: your dream of being an energy superpower has not been realized. -- >> for those worried about jobs of the future, what comes next? p.m. harper: i think i just laid out exactly where we are going? we are living in a very challenged global economy. we have enormous economic instability. through it all, the canadian economy has created a large number of jobs. 1.3 million net new jobs since

the end of the global financial crisis. most eventful time in the private sector. in good wage industries. incomes have been risings. there are challenges and we can do more. the essence of our plan is making sure that we make investments. the other parties are trying to tell us they will deal with the challenges of our economy, our label market, by raising taxes and running deficits define it vastly increasing amount of spending. that is not the way to protect our economy in this environment. the way to protect our economy is to make specific investments that will help build our labor force, infrastructure, manufacturing and other resource industries, while at the same time, making sure we're keeping our taxes down and budget balanced. host: that is mr. harper's answer. to mr. mulcair we go. jobs, you need to do more surely than support the manufacturing sector. what is your jobs plan? m.p. mulcair: i was disappointed

the prime minister was able to go beyond resource extraction. mr. harper put all of his eggs into one basket and drop to the basket. thousands of jobs lost on his canadians out of a job compared to 2008. jobs, to manufacturing work on innovation. we want to drop the taxes of canada's small and medium-size businesses. they create a percent of new jobs in this country. -- they create 80% of new jobs. making sure that you can balance your work life and family life is important to the ndp. that is why one of our key points is to make sure we bring in quality, affordable childcare across canada, at most $15 a day. once it's fully ramped up, it will be one million over the childcare spaces across the country. that will be good for the country, but also for women, who make tough sacrifices-- host: mr. trudeau, can you

please lead this part of the debate? m.p. trudeau: thank you david, it's great to be in calgary tonight. i want to start with a few questions. are you better off now than you were 10 years ago when stephen harper became prime minister? is our country better off? do you have better job prospects? do you have confidence that your kids have a brighter future? i've spent a long time talking with thousands of canadians across this country. and mr. harper may not see what is going on. but i do. i know that canadians are worried about their jobs, and that is what this election is about. their jobs in the jobs our kids are going to have. that is why, we have a strong and clear plan to invest in the middle class, to grow the economy, give it a kickstart it needs, and put more money in canadian's pockets. it starts with actually raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% so we

can lower them for the middle class. it starts with investing in canada once again, inroads, in clean water, in transit, in jobs. when we talk about that investment, we are very clear -- we are going to run three modest deficits in order to pay for it. those of the kinds of investments mr. harper hasn't made for 10 years. if you think this economy is doing great, that mr. harper is your guy. if you need a change, the liberal party has a plan. p.m. harper: look, i never said things are great. i said we are living in a very unstable global economic environment. i would ask people at home the following. in the last 10 years, where would you rather have been in all this global economic instability rather than canada? looking forward, where would you rather be than canada? these of the key questions. proposes permanent deficits. he is against our cuts to small

businesses. the reason he is opposed is he said, a large percentage of small businesses are just wealthy people avoiding taxes. mr. trudeau, they are the backbone of the middle class and it's the backbone of the canadian economy-- m.p. trudeau: mr. harper, you know full well-- you know full well that the liberal party plan is to drop small business taxes from 11% to 9%. he's just playing politics. we have a plan, not only to encourage small businesses, but to invest in what small businesses need. like reliable transportation, like a growing economy. mr. harper has not only the worst growth record on jobs, worst job creation record since world war ii, he has the worst record on economic growth since the great depression. we need to grow its economy. host: mr. mulcair, you are hearing a good ding dong, between these two.

where do you lie? m.p. mulcair: i'm going to ring their bell. dumprudeau is planning to millions of dollars in debt on the backs of generations. mr. harper wants to hit the snooze button while mr. trudeau wants to hit the perfect. -- hit the panic button. without a cost plan yesterday, which is reliable and sustainable. neither of these numbers will do the same. out a cost plan. these talk: both of about cutting taxes for small businesses. what they also propose, and small businesses notice around the country, vapor hikes to people taxes. -- they hikes to taxes. -- to payroll taxes that are 10

times bigger than the tax cuts they are promising small businesses. that is why the canadian federation of small business and other experts today said that mr. mulcair's tax increases will cost at least 250,000 jobs. you don't protect our economy and move it forward-- m.p. trudeau: mr. harper has demonstrated once again. that he is missing canadians need support. -- once again that he is missing the point. whyjust our taxes, -- pensions are not taxes, they don't get that back. mulcair needs to hit the wake-up call. [indiscernible] host: let's have mr. harper quickly respond in a sentence. m.p. mulcair: we have given all kind of tax incentives for

people to save. m.p. trudeau: know they are not. p.m. harper: workers and small employers do not want these tax hikes. they are coming right out of the paychecks. $1000 from the liberal party proposal of someone making $60,000. this comes from people putting food-- host: mr. mulcair. m.p. mulcair: that was a really long sentence, david. the average canadian knows that it can plan is necessary. , as far as mr. harper is concerned it's a tax. i am tired of watching successive liberal and conservative governments don't these massive ecological, economic, and social debts on the back-- host: that brings us some relief to the end of the first question. we move on to the second topic -- energy and the environment. this question goes to mr. mulcair. in the last campaign, the ndp

cost of $1 billion on its carbon pricing policy. what is your current proposal, and what would the cost be for carbon emissions? m.p. mulcair: thank you very much. we know that i dynamic and innovative energy sector is crucial for canada for the years to come. we also know that canada has international obligations to follow through on. the liberals signed kyoto with no plan to respected, that is why they went on to have one of the worst records for greenhouse gas production. simply, stephen -- shamefully, stephen harper was the only country to withdraw from the kyoto protocol. we have always believed the best way to ensure a reduction in greenhouse gases is what is called the cap and trade system. canada and the u.s. had a successful model to reduce so2 when it was causing acid rain on our forests.

it can work before and it can work again. everyone has to understand there are tens of thousands of jobs, especially here in alberta, that rely on that sector. we have to develop our resources responsibly and sustainably, which is what i did when i was mr.. -- when i was minister. host: what is the costing for your cap and trade proposal? it is a carbon tax like british colombia? what with the tax be? m.p. mulcair: i don't think you can guarantee a reduction with a carbon tax. although there is more information available. a cap and trade system can guarantee reduction. these are basic possibles of sustainable develop it. you cannot allow people to use-- host: without not create revenue hemorrhaging in alberta? m.p. mulcair: no, that is not what happened when we brought in the cap and trade system.

you can make sure that you are reinvesting in green energy technologies around the world. that will be $5 trillion spent on green energy technologies in the next five years. unfortunately, canada won't even be part of it because the government has taken an approach to put its resources in other places. we have to add jobs here in canada. >> is it going to be more than 21 billion or less? m.p. mulcair: that is proposed by the cap and trade system- host: let's move to mr. trudeau. for your plan, it looks like a lot of it is left to promises. how do you lead the country, perhaps going to the human climate conference later this year without a canadian policy? m.p. trudeau: we have a canadian policy, and it's one that recognizes it. for 10 years under harper with no leadership under the environment, provinces have moved forward. our for biggest provinces -- four biggest provinces have put

taxes on carbon. the idea of imposing a bureaucracy out of ottawa, a cap and trade system on provinces like british columbia, that have already moved forward with a world-renowned carbon tax that is working for them, is actually a completely nonsensical plan. we are committed to working with the provinces to reduce emissions. to encourage them to hit the target needed so that we can contribute once again to reducing emissions. we will go to paris for the climate change conference with all premieres to talk about how we're going to meet that responsibility we collectively share on this planet to prevent a to degree increase in global temperature. host: i think we are hearing a lot of skating. mr. harper, you start off the open floor. p.m. harper: this is the first government in canadian history

that was able to see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time cd economy grow. we didn't do that through carbon tax schemes. principally because carbon taxes are not about reducing emissions, they are about raising revenue for the government. in one form or another, that is what the other parties are opposing. we have been moving sector by sector when we actually know the cost in effect in new regulations and reducing emissions before we actually do it. it's not just left to chance. i want to address the other half of the statement in the energy sector. it's been a very important driver of the canadian economy. it's obviously having a significant downturn because of the fall of energy prices. that sector needs the government that is on its side. we want to see the sector grow and develop. [indiscernible] m.p. mulcair: under stephen harper's stewardship, we have not built one pipeline, and it's easy to understand why. we have a whole series of environmental laws.

we don't have a credible environmental assessment process left in this country. he thought he was hoping companies -- helping companies by destroying that legislation. i lowered greenhouse gas production in our province every year. it can be done. we brought an overarching develop legislation, the toughest in north america. we changed the charter of rights to include the right to live in a clean environment. mr. harper sees the environment and economy as polar opposites. everybody in canada knows you have to work on both at the same time. p.m. harper: which is why we have done both. mulcair, you are the only one who is going to another country and to argue against-- [indiscernible] host: let mr. trudeau.

m.p. mulcair: 40,000 jobs will be exported to the keystone xl. i want to create those 40,000 jobs in canada. let's add value to our national resources here. that is the way to sustain read of element. -- sustain redevelopment. [indiscernible] m.p. trudeau: i was living in quebec at that time, and i would never he was -- that he was proposing bulk water exports. you gave a speech on it. look at your own record. continues to pretend that there is a choice between environment and economy. he chooses to say that you cannot build a strong economy if you are protecting the environment. felthas been his failure, right here in calgary. he talks about being best friend

that calgary and alberta has ever had. he has not gotten pipelines built. he has made the oilsands in international via. with friends like stephen harper, alberta doesn't need enemies. host: when is the costing of your plan. mr. mulcair first. m.p. mulcair: our plan includes ringing overarching -- bringing in overarching legislation that can provide action when a country is trying to pollute the environment. mr. harper talks a good game on international trade deals. he's done everything in his power to stop the north american free trade agreement from even measuring pollution going into the environment. that is his track record. we will enforce overarching sustainable develop it, applying it fairly and equally to everyone. canadians will know we will stop leaving this massive ecological debt on the backs of future generations. m.p. trudeau: you asked about costing. we will move forward with pricing and carbon and injuring to reduce greenhouse gases in a

responsible way. the liberal party is committed to investing $20 billion over 10 years in greener infrastructure. floodplain mitigation in calgary and places across the country. investing in clean jobs, making sure we are moving towards renewable energy. yes, we need to get our resources to market. it's one of the fundamental responsibilities of a prime minister. to do that, we need to move in a responsible way that understands the future we are leading to our kids. host: mr. harper? p.m. harper: we are investing about $1 billion a year in green energy efficiency technology. what we are not doing is imposing costs among consumers. we are in a fragile economy. we hear the same old story from the ndp, we will fix this somehow through raising taxes. in their platform yesterday, they put in a bunch of tax increases for the energy and mining sector. the same story we had in alberta when the ndp came to office, we somehow fix our problems to

raising taxes. now i see treat people getting higher individual tax bills. people getting laid off because their employers are paying higher taxes. [indiscernible] m.p. mulcair: i will drop canada's corporate taxes by billions of dollars--if that is so good, why did we lose some any jobs? [indiscernible] host: we now move to the third topic, which is infrastructure. this goes to mr. trudeau. are you committed to taking us into deficit to fund your deficit -- to fund your infrastructure plan? spending money is easy promise. what does success look like? m.p. trudeau:m.p. trudeau: canadians understand that when you want to buy a new home or renovate your existing home, you

take out a bank loan. you know that you can invest in your future because that is what confident, optimistic countries do. we invest in our future. right now, mr. harper thinks that the investments he's made over the past 10 years are enough. they are not. he has had the worst job creation rate since world war ii. he is the worst growth rate of any prime minister since the great depression. we need to create transit that canadians need. we need to do it right now. mr. mulcair talks about putting things off for 3-5-20 years. we are the only party that has said yes, we will run three modest deficits, because it's time to invest in canada once again. that is why we work with municipalities and provinces to identify the necessary projects and get them built. we will invest in the future of our country. host: mr. trudeau, he said you would create a new interceptor bank. that is dependent upon canada's

investing funds. they have not done that because projects have been too small. what if they don't sign up? m.p. trudeau: we are proposing a new in for structure bank that will help provinces and municipalities borrow at the advantageous rate that the federal government has. yes, we are, as a separate initiative, looking to pension funds in canada. to do that, we need a much more robust partner in the federal government. for a decade now, mr. harper has under invested in our infrastructure. while he is running fiscal deficits, has also been increasing are in the structure deficit. the fact is canadians stuck in traffic on the gardener or on the deerfoot or elsewhere across the country know that we need a plan that is going to tackle transit and roads right now. not a decade from now like mr. mulcair, and not at all, like mr. harper has been doing.

that is what our plan is all about. that is why i'm going to invest in the future of our country. host: mr. haper, is mr. trudeau onto something? p.m. harper: absolutely not. [laughter] hear of the facts. -- here are the facts. are government is putting 15 times more than the last full-year of liberal government. of the decade, our economic action has been to create jobs and growth, have some $80 billion, in unprecedented amount of money into infrastructure across the country. of course the easiest thing to do is to come along and say, let's just spent more. we have managed to do this without raising your taxes and without borrowing anything as we move forward. mr. trudeau comes and says, let's spend more and run a deficit. running a deficit is not the kind of protection our economy needs. we are in an unstable global economy.

we managed to return to a balanced budget for the second year, when many countries haven't done so. that's an asset we should continue to pursue. we don't need to spend more just for the sake of being able to say-- host: was moved to the open floor. m.p. mulcair: mr. trudeau's plan, is frankly reckless. minas appellees across this 6% ofy are asked to spent its intersection -- 60% of its infrastructure. that is not sustainable. the old liberal approach leaving tens of billions of dollars of debt on the backs of future generations is also not sustainable. we are a reliable long-term partner for music penalties across the country. we don't need the short-term thinking of the liberals. you need money invested long-term. constant spending over the years, $1.5 billion a year in and for structure. $1.3 billion a year in transit. those are important sums of

money. mulcairdeau: what mr. is that long-term starts right now, not five years from now, not years from now, not after mandates. canadians need help right now. we have a situation where interests rates are low, so borrowing has never been cheaper for the federal government. are debt to gdp ratio is getting lower. our economy has been flat for 10 years. my question is, now that there are thousands upon thousands of skilled canadians looking for work in construction and growth, if this isn't the time to invest, what would be? i talked with-- he was saying that costs from municipal investment are down 20% compared to last year because of the circumstances we are in. this is the time to invest in the future of our country. canadians. know this the only people that don't seem to know this are the two

gentlemen on the stage. p.m. harper: not only are we pursuing a long-term in for structure plan -- infrastructure plan. this year we are proceeding with a $6 billion plan to eliminate the federal structure deficit. that is what we are doing right now. we are doing that without borrowing money or raising taxes. mr. trudeau says he will raise taxes. mr. mulcair's plan is the same old ndp playbook. whole bunch more spending. we can finance that by raising taxes on a few rich people and corporations. what happens? you start putting people out of work, slowing the economy, killing jobs. that is the reality of the ndp plan where every has been tried. m.p. mulcair: you are wrong about that, mr. harper. m.p. trudeau: he has chosen to not raise taxes on the wealthiest canadians. only liberal party will to give a tax cut to the middle class. m.p. mulcair: the ndp is

categorical. we will not be raising taxes on individual canadians. we will be asking canadian large corporations to start their fair share. they are the only canadians who don't right now. mr. harper and mr. trudeau are of one mind. they thought dropping taxes by billions of dollars is a good idea. when we do recent, it will be reasonably. -- when we raise it, it will be reasonable. we will also make sure that we close tax loopholes, like the stock option tax loophole, brought in by the liberals, that will ensure that people are effectively playing more, not a theoretical amount. with regard to the difference between the liberals and us, it's true the liberals want to raise individual's personal income taxes. the ndp won't do that. is not fair that someone looking at their paystub that 50% is only going in income taxes. it is not our plan.

mulcair talksmr. about the wealthiest 1% are paying their fair share. if you look at the past 30 years, income for the wealthiest 1% of canadians had increased by 70%, while the federal tax share has decreased by 32%. i don't think that is fair. we are the only party that is asking that wealthiest 1% that has done well to pay a little more so that we can talk those taxes. -- cut those taxes. host: is the creation of another bank the answer? m.p. trudeau: it loans to principalities and provinces. they can take the preferential rates that the federal government gets. it is yet another way, on top of the $60 billion of investments we are making in municipalities, it starts with doubling in the first year for transit, childcare spaces, and for seniors residences.

it is time to invest in the future of our country. it has never been more appropriate to invest in the future of our country. these gentlemen can't see that because they are stuck in a political way, not an economic way. raisearper: he will millions of dollars to the closings of stock options. there is simply not that kind of money. the ndp exaggerates how much money they can raise through a few tax hikes. ndppayroll tax hikes of the amount to over $1500 a person, who is making just $60,000 a year. those fines comes right out of your paycheck. the money you're using to pay your mortgage, by your close, fund your kid's education. [indiscernible] host: the stock option tax loophole-- m.p. mulcair: it goes mostly to the wealthiest canadians. host: we have to leave it there. now to question four on

immigration. it goes to mr. harper. all parties agreed that immigration is essential to canada's long-term economic strategy. what is the right balance between economic migrants and those seeking family reunification? p.m. harper: every year we put out numbers. we have maintained a balance between those various categories. of people that come in are related to economic streams, others related to family reunification's. what i am most proud of is that this is the first government in canadian history, that did not cut our immigration. the reason we did not cut immigration is because we understand, given the demographic and economic pressures, that a long-term immigration program is in this country's interest. that is why we're looking at the long-term. i am pleased we have moved forward on that. we are doing specific things to

make sure that economic sections of our policy are more oriented to getting results. for example, we was the process applications in order. what is called express entry. they feel actual vacancies in the job market. this is a transmission that will be important. the agingounter demographic of canada? p.m. harper: we maintained our numbers at very high levels. over $250,000 a year. there is room forward to increase that. we want to make sure we get the right mix. there are significant settlement funding costs with some streams of immigration. that's a possibility going forward. the main thing is that we make sure we are maximizing the economic benefit of immigration. i talked about express entry. another example is the foreign credentials loans program. we brought it in as a pilot. we found that if we give, through third-party groups,

immigrants, very small loans to upgrade their qualifications so that they are recognized in canada, we can get them into the workforce much more quickly. we have a payback on those loans well over 90%. there's a lot of things even in our existing level that we can do to improve the system. trudeau, what role does economic -- what role does immigration play in your economic plan? m.p. trudeau: immigration is essential to our growth. we are a country that has benefited from people coming from faraway lands, building a better future for themselves and their children and community then they could anywhere else. that is been the strength of this country. we are strong not in spite of our differences, but because of them. one thing that mr. harper is hisinued to under invest in family reunification. this is something that is really important to create strong communities.

yes, the economic benefits of immigrants.are well-known there is more to them than it just workers. they are community builders. they are creating stronger cities and strong or futures. that is where the cuts he has made to integration programs, to holding canadian exley succeed, are so disappointing. canada has always given people a path to succeed. that is what we need to get back to. host: open floor. m.p. mulcair: canada is a country of immigrants. unless you are first nation, your family are graded to canada. i couldn't be prouder to tell you that my wife catherine immigrated to canada. she's one of the many people who contributed so much. under mr. harper's conservatives, we have been closing the door more and more on aspects of immigration. mr. trudeau just referenced it, and he is right. family reunification has been totally shut down under mr.

harper's conservative. the best social program is the united family. you have a strong family base. -- shou be considered ldn't be considered a burden, as the conservatives do. they have left the program in shambles. it went off in different directions. even mr. harper, in a secret meeting, admitted it was in total shambles. one final point. mr. harper referenced recognition of foreign diplomas and credentials. unfortunately it's still the number one cause of on implement, filler to recognize -- number one cause of unemployment in immigrants, failure to recognize credentials. p.m. harper: i'm not sure how you can have a secret meeting with the media. [laughter] m.p. mulcair: i would know you would manage it, mr. harper. p.m. harper: or the first 10 years of this government, we have seen family reunification

levels rise 10%. under the liberal government previously, it was down 50%. people understand that the new canadians, the liberal party talks a good game, but didn't deliver. we have 200 million newcomers that are overwhelmingly contributing positive to this country. they are entrepreneurs, they are family people. they are growing our economy and working hard. this is one of the most positive things about this country. through controlled and legal immigration, we are able to have the best record anywhere in the world. mr. harper has to mistreated that in the case of refugees, canada is not doing enough. this is some think that mr. harper has unfortunately don't number of times. he likes to talk about standing up against tyrants and dictators, but do you know who stands up against tyrants and dictators?

families hoping for a better life. they crossed the oceans and make it to canada. what does mr. harper do? take away their health care. we need to once again be a country that is open and welcoming. yes, we need to be concerned about security. but we don't take that as the excuse to close our doors. in years past, whether it was joe clark, the conservative prime minister who bought intent of thousands of vietnamese boat people, other governments that welcomed and people that contributed to this country, we need to once again be the open and generous country. not naive, making sure we are doing security right, but not using it as an excuse to do less than we should. host: mr. harper, let's bring it back to the economy. p.m. harper: when he corrected the record. refugees are about the economy. the fact of the matter is, we have not taken away health care from immigrants and refugees.

on the contrary. the overtime we removed it is are we had clearly bogus refugee claimants that have been turned down. we do not offer them a better health care plan than the ordinary canadian can receive. on the issue of refugees, this remains one of the largest countries in the world in terms of refugee resettlement. i have said we will bring in more. these guys would have had in the last two weeks, throwing open our borders and literally hundreds of thousands of people coming without any kind of security check or documentation. >> that is not true, mr. harper. m.p. mulcair: mr. harper is playing on fears all the time-- [indiscernible] mulcair.'s go to mr. immigration on the economy. m.p. mulcair: canadians wanted prime minister that understand the sense of urgency we all feel

when we see the current crisis in syria. mr. harper unfortunately is fear mongering. its complete be false to affirm that any of the parties in canada would want to throw open the doors to people without any regard to security. we have got to stop using security concerns as an excuse to do nothing. mr. harper, why don't you stop using the security excuse as a pretext to do nothing? nobody wants to let somebody in without a security check, but you are doing nothing. p.m. harper: we are bringing in more refugees. we are bringing them in more quickly. we're providing a matching fund for military and support. under the most generous refugee policy, most of these people will remain in those countries and need our assistance. m.p. mulcair: we have been asked to bring in my thousand effigies, but you want to do it-- -- 9000 refugees, but you want to do it.

that's the united nations asking, mr. harper. p.m. harper: is not the reckless approach that these two-- m.p. mulcair: canadian fear mongering-- p.m. harper: canada has done more in the past. we need to do more right now. we will do more on october 20. host: the next topic is housing. mr. trudeau. canadians have been on a borrowing inch to buy -- borrowing binge to buy more expensive homes. what would you do to guard against a growing housing bubble? m.p. trudeau: unfortunately for many canadians, their entire economic security is in their homes. we need to make sure that while housing prices rise, incomes are rising as well. middle-class canadians believe that their jobs are giving them better and better salaries, that they can get raises. to do that, we need to create economic growth. we need to reassure canadians that the economy will grow at the same pace as their house values. mr. harper is not delivered that .

record centsrst rb bennett and the great oppression. many can't find a rental housing. that is why the liberal party has a plan to increase investment in home construction of rental units, to help seniors with the cost of rent by increasing gis, and making sure that we actually give people the support needed to get their homes and have that economic security. host: would you restrict foreign ownership of residential homes in canada? m.p. trudeau: we are seeing concerns on that. but we don't have enough accurate data to understand entirely what is happening. mr. harper has chosen to cut the longform census, and it leaves us with less understanding. the liberal party is committed to restoring the longform census to ensure that we have the kind of data so that we can respond to local challenges like you speak of.

will we need to be is a federal government is a much better partner to provinces and municipalities to address challenges that are faced in our major centers like vancouver and toronto. but also the challenges being felt right across the country for those struggling to buy their first home, people struggling to find rental housing, and need help to get that economic letter to success. it hasn't been there over the past 10 years. that is what the liberal plan to invest in the future of our country is all about. mulcair, what would you do to help the squeezed middle-class who have high property taxes and mortgages? m.p. mulcair: the first thing canadians should recall is the last time liberals were in power, they canceled canada's national housing strategy. also worth knowing there were 35,000 homeless in canada right now. i gave an example earlier of our

quality affordable childcare, maximum $15 a day. here in calgary and lots of other cities, parents are paying well over $3000 your for childcare. -- $20,000 a year for childcare. a lot of young people looking at having a family and they look at the cost and it extremely difficult. we would make sure we put more money in their pockets and we would bring in as a model for others and with regard to the other people he would give a race to come a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. think the housing story is a very positive story in this country. you look around the world where there have knowledge these financial crushes. a lot of them centered