carly fiorina: this is why challenging the status quo is hard. guess what happens when you decide you are going to go from a 73,000 tax page code to three? when you say the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers? everybody that has benefited from that status quo rushes into protected. it is human nature. it is why change is always hard. there have been people who benefit from the status quo. carly fiorina: companies, politicians, special interests -- every single one of those groups will come in to protect what they have. which is why the power of citizenship is so important. ours was intended to be a citizen government. we cannot take our government

back unless, as citizens, we are prepared to participate. let me use your question to say this. i am going to ask you to help me, because it is the only way we are going to actually take our government back. once a week, i will go into the oval office. the president has a weekly radio address. i'm going to ask you to take out your smartphone. anybody still use a flip phone? [laughter] you have about 16 months, start shopping. i will go into the oval office and ask citizens to take out their smartphones. do you think it is important that we know where your money is being spent? that we go to somewhere near zero-based budget. press 1 for yes. 2 for no. it is a way to put pressure on this political system. do you think that instead of a 73,000 page tax code, maybe it should be 3.

after 50 years of not doing so, should we roll it back? press 1 for yes, 2 for no. [applause] fiorina: by the way, i know that a bunch of you are going to be sitting in their saying "1!" [applause] [laughter] i am counting on that. when 75% of the american people think the government is corrupt and 82% think we have a professional political class, what does that mean? it means we found common ground between democrats and republicans, men and women, young and old. 75% is a huge majority. that common ground gives us an opportunity not just to win but govern differently. one last thing on this. why do i say i am so confident? why do i say i'm so confident that the political class

responds to pressure? because we have evidence of it. i mentioned the v.a. scandal 18 months ago. remember when we learned that veterans were dying before they got an appointment, the bureaucrats were cooking the books so we do not find out. the american people were so outraged that congress reacted. and they passed a bipartisan bill in three weeks, demonstrating they can do something. in three weeks, passed a bill that said we can fire the top 400 senior executives. by the way, only one person has been fired because the pressure did not stay on. and the horrors just keep coming on. it is a proof point. with concerted pressure from the citizens of this nation, the political process will move. so go get your new phone. [laughter] : yes, sir?na >> you talked about the size of

government. [inaudible] with the kinds of bureaucracy, how you do it? carly fiorina: it is hard. let me give you a couple of things and then there is a young lady in the middle and i will come to you next. so first, we had not undertaken a major reform or rollback of regulation since ronald reagan. that is how long it has been. it can be done. we have a veritable thicket of stuff to get to. you are right. here is a window of opportunity, though, in the next five years, 256,000 baby boomers will retire out of the federal government. i will not replace a single one. it is a window in time to make a big move. [applause] carly fiorina: second, if we go

to zero-based budgeting and we establish that every dollar has to be justified, every single year, guess what? there will be a lot of dollars that we should not be spending. what does technology permit us to do? it permits us to put every single one of those budgets out for everybody to see. and there will be things that are outrageous. if you go from 73,000 pages to three, you need a whole lot less irs agents, don't you? if you start to roll back all of the epa regs that this demonstration has put into place, ladies and gentlemen, who are these rule makers? epa, the fcc, who are these people? they are bureaucrats. they're not elected by anyone.

when we roll it back, and we must, when we do a top to bottom review, we need a lot fewer people. and please be assured that one of the first questions i will ask you is, do you think that bill that got passed that allowed us to fire the top 400 senior executives of the v.a. for dereliction of duty, do you believe that process ought to apply all throughout government? press 1 for yes. 2 for no. [applause] carly fiorina: we get it done by taking advantage of every single person that retires. by making sure that as we simplify and examine government, that we do not replace. we do it on making sure every time we roll back, the people responsible for administering that are no longer there. and we make sure that there is consequence in the federal government for failure to

perform. [applause] >> [no audio] fiorina: the question was what are our priorities. is to strengthen the military and care for those who have already served. there are certain things the federal government is responsible for. for example, the federal government is responsible for securing our borders. because if we cannot secure our borders, we cannot protect our sovereignty. [applause] carly fiorina: that means a big

priority has to be to actually make sure we understand who is coming into this country and who is not -- who should not becoming into this country. we have to put a huge priority on fixing the illegal immigration system, which has contributed to this problem for 50 years. what is another responsibility? roads and bridges. guess what? we never have enough money to fix roads and bridges and we are always asking taxpayers to pay more. we have aging infrastructure. i would not do it by saying you have to have a union contract to get the work. that is how the present government does it. picks winners and losers. education is a hugely important priority to the young lady's question. for 50 years, the department of narrator:

for 50 years, the department of eduation has gotten bigger under republicans and democrats alike. in fact, it has deteriorated. we have had goals of these centralized education programs to close the achievement gap between low income and high income children. and that gap is greater now than it was 20 years ago. what can you conclude? that spending money does not have a lot to do with the quality of education. what does? [applause] carly fiorina: what does? we know the answer to this. what are the two most important things in a child's education? a good teacher in the classroom and uninvolved parent or member of the community. [applause] -- an involved parent or member of the community. [applause]

carly fiorina: we need to have more power and control in the hands of community and family. when we take away choices, we take away their chances. these wonderful children who stood up and gave the pledge of allegiance are at a charter school. the truth is, every parent should have as many choices as possible. chargers, vouchers, parochial, homeschooling, you name it. this is an area where we have to have a fight with the other side. because the other side is totally on the wrong side. but they are also robbing too many children of their chances. democrats are continuing to protect and preserve the status quo of the teachers' union. the result is that too many kids are trapped in failing schools. [applause] carly fiorina: common core is a

really bad idea. it is a version of crony capitalism. textbook companies helped write it. [applause] carly fiorina: it is a standardized bureaucratic program to teach teachers how to teach and students how to learn. the reason i say we have to have this fight is because we believe that every child has god-given gifts. that every child wants to learn. that every child can learn. that a child's opportunity to learn prepares them for possibilities later in life. sometimes i tell people, people say that progressives actually believe that. but they don't, not if you look at the consequence of the policies. i quote the head of the chicago teachers union who took to the microphone in the middle of a , and she said this, "we cannot be held accountable for performance in our classroom because too many of them are poor and come from broken families." what was she saying?

if you are poor and calm from a broken family you cannot learn. , that is not what i believe. that is not what you believe. and that is not the united states of america. [applause] carly fiorina: and if we do away with all of these department of education programs and put the money and resources and the choices and the accountability and the power back where it belongs in families, communities, and states, then we need a whole lot less people in the department of education. [applause] carly fiorina: yes, go ahead. you are trying to hand a mic to this nice lady. >> you spoke about defense, how specifically would you increase the u.s. armed forces? carly fiorina: first, let me say

that in the defense department, i have advised two secretaries. there is something called the tooth to tail ratio. technology,g men, .he tip of the spear t tail, bureaucracy. we have the worst ratio, not enough at the tip of the spear. too much in the caboose. we have to invest in reform. what does that mean? let me start with the most fundamental thing, ladies and gentlemen, we must honor, we must value, we must care for, we must listen to the members of our military services. [applause]

carly fiorina: this administration does not. it is pretty clear. it is important to understand how terrible the situation is for so many of our armed services who are out there. i know moms, maybe some of you do too, who have sons and -- in afghanistan. they are not shipping chocolate chip cookies to them. their shipping blankets, pillows, and mres. i was watching a young man graduate from the military academy the marines. , i watched his family. they had that combination of happiness and sadness, of pride and fear. we have to care for those who serve for us.

specifically, however, we need additional battalions. we need 440 new naval vessels. the air force is in relatively good shape. we need to stand with our allies and stand with our adversaries. we have a plan. there is a priority in which this has to be done. i have said that i would talk to bebe netanyahu, the supreme leader of iran. i will not talk to vladimir putin, although i have met him. i will not talk to vladimir putin in tow we speak from a position of strength. [applause] carly fiorina: specifically, one the places i will start is rebuilding the fleet under his nose. rebuilding the defense missile program under his nose in poland. [applause]

carly fiorina: and conducting regulatory military exercises in the baltic states. we must impose no-fly zones in syria because the president of russia cannot tell america when and where to fly. [applause] carly fiorina: we have a whole series of allies who are asking us for help and support. china is a rising adversary. i just got off phone with the foreign minister of australia. australia, japan, the philippines, all have asked us for very specific support. technology, intelligence sharing, weaponry in some cases to help push back on the rising adversary of china. we have a whole set of allies in east who know that isis is evil. but we have denied the most basic request. we have denied the kurds, king

abdullah of jordan, a man i have known him for a long time. we have denied intelligence sharing. there is a whole set of things that we must do to build up our own military capability, not only to honor those who serve, but to help our allies help us. and they will help us. but they need to see leadership, support, resolve, and strength on the part of the united states of america. [applause] carly fiorina: are you handing the microphone to someone? last question. >> thank you. my name is caitlin. i am a homeschooled student. one of my classes is debate. we got an interesting question this week, i was hoping you could answer it. carly fiorina: uh-oh. [laughter] caitlin: should the u.s.

government financially support countries that persecute christians? carly fiorina: it is a great question. by the way, the first thing i would say is we must condemn the persecution of christians. and this administration has been silent. [applause] carly fiorina: john kerry announces with great fanfare that we are going to accept into this country 100,000 syrian refugees. by the way thanks a lot, john , kerry. you will not be around to figure out who these people are. and we do not know how to figure out who they are. this is a dangerous thing. our hearts break when we see the pictures, but we cannot simply let people in here if we do not know who they are or what they plan to do. but what is amazing to me -- [applause] carly fiorina: what is amazing to me is that this

administration has been utterly silent about not just the persecution of christians, the crucifixion of christians, the beheading of christians, the mass exodus of christians throughout the middle east. we cannot be silent. and the short answer, of course, is no. but it is also true that we have influence over some of these nations. when we say nothing, when we do nothing, we lose all of our influence. so not only will i speak out, but my actions will be consistent with my words. and that is what the world needs to see from the united states of america, action that is consistent with words. [applause] carly fiorina: ladies and gentlemen, i appreciate very much you being here this afternoon. it is a beautiful friday

afternoon. and so you are exercising citizenship by being here. and i hope i can continue to count on your citizenship, as well as your support and your votes and prayers. and i want to close by reminding you of who we are. because i think that when we remember who we are, we can do everything that must be done to solve all of our problems. and to heal all of our wounds. it is easy to get discouraged and say the problems are so huge, there is nothing we can do. but the truth is, yes, the problems are huge but the , answers are clear. i said that we have to remember we were intended to be a citizen government. that is true. but i also want to remind you of who we are in more detail by asking you to think about two of the most powerful symbols of our democracy. because i think they tell us everything we need to know about who we are.

picture in your minds lady liberty and lady justice. lady liberty stands tall and strong, which is the way america must always be. she is clear-eyed and resolute. she does not shield her eyes from the realities or the evils of the world. and yet, she faces out into the world. which is the way america must always face. and she holds her torch high because she knows she is a begin -- she is a beacon of hope in a very troubled world. lady justice holds a sword by her side because she is a fighter. she's a warrior for the values and principles that has made this country great. she holds a scale in her other hand. with that scale, she is reminding us that all of us are equal in the eyes of god. and so all of us must be equal in the eyes of the law and government, powerful and powerless alike. and she wears a blindfold. and with that blindfold, i think

she is reminding us, she is saying to us that it can be true, it must be true. that in this nation, this century it does not matter what you look like. it doesn't matter who you are. it does not matter how you start. it does not matter your circumstances. here in this nation, every american's life must be filled with the possibility that comes from their god-given gifts. and we must be one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you so very much ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> all caps a long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house, unfiltered access to the candidates townhall meetings, rallies, and speeches.

we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook, and by phone. event we cover is on our website at c-span.org. education secretary arne duncan will talk about standardized testing tomorrow and how the results are being used in today's education system. that is the council of great city schools. watch it live at 9:30 a.m. on c-span two. grexit we take a look at the u.s. immigration system since the 1995 act. the economic policy institute and american constitution society for law and policy cohosted it. we have it live on c-span2 beginning it noon eastern. all persons having business before the supreme court of the united states give their attention. >> we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed

by congress on a economic issue like health care. >> the case is whether a majority rule, a state legislature, can take away the life and liberty without due process. i think it is a wonderful decision. , lochner v new york. askedw york legislature the bank shop act, restricting the hours to 10 hours per day of bakeshop employees. a bakery owner violated that law and was fined $50. refusing to pay, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. find out why lochner is known as one of the most controversial with randy burnett, professor of constitutional law and author of the book, restoring the lost constitution.

, political science professor at texas state university. landmark cases, live monday on c-span3, c-span3, and c-span radio. >> coming up next from , theington journal" discussion of u.s.-canada relations after the election of a new prime minister. .:00, q and a later, david cameron takes questions from members of the house of commons. host: our focus is canadian politics. the director of the wilson center canada institute. good morning. i mentioned earlier that richard 1972 posted justin

trudeau. 43 years later, he is now the prime minister. any idea that nixon had such powers of forecasting and prediction. host: who is justin trudeau and explain his rise to power. guest: he is an icon in the canadian landscape. his father was a trudeau, canada's longest-serving prime minister. he was a game changer for canada, ushering canada into a ,oderate internationalists cool, trendy world in the 1960's. he had a wife who was dancing at studio 54 with the rolling stones. she was 30 years his junior. he was really a remarkable character. justin trudeau grew up in front of our eyes. his first home was the prime minister's residence and canada. so we watched this young man grow up. we thought it was interesting.

thing. carter type of he disappeared from view only to return in 2000 to really catch attention. host: pierre trudeau serving as prime minister in the 1960's and 1970's. many refer to him as canada's john kennedy. guest: there are definitely parallels. canada does not do the legacy families. we don't have the bushes, the kennedys. it's surprising that we have this trudeau senior trudeau junior. there are definite parallels to john f. kennedy. at the same time, trudeau was more about establishing an identity for canada, bringing canada into the modern age as a country that was open to immigration. ,hat was diverse, multicultural that had a lot less influence over personal behavior. i believe it was trudeau senior who said government has no is

this in the bedroom of the nations -- bedrooms of the nation. he helped to change canadian identity. i think this new trudeau is having an effect on canadian identity. i think it is a reaction to the -- almost mean-spirited we had with stephen harper. host: it stephen harper and the conservatives concede early on that he and his party were going to lose? guest: no concession whatsoever. host: you could see a different tone in the campaign. guest: internally to tell they were hanging on with their fingernails. internally they knew that stephen harper was not well-liked. there really was not a lot to take on the harper government at a policies level. his economic policies were pretty good. he got canada through an economic and financial crisis. he stared the ship of state pretty well. but at a personal level, he just

wasn't well-liked. people were, i don't know, headed up to here with stephen harper, even the conservatives. the conservatives were in this position where their governance was pretty good. their powers, especially in alberta and saskatchewan, were especially strong. but at the same time, people were tired of stephen harper. justintrudeau -- host: to set axpected pragmatic, not partisan, course in canada. he spoke to reporters in ottawa. [video clip] >> i indicated to mr. obama that i felt that it was important a candidate demonstrate a level of positive and gauge meant on the environmental file -- of engagement on the environmental file, on the international stage.

i look forward to demonstrating that we have a canadian government now that understands that the way to build a strong economy is to protect and defend our environment. that was the general tone of the conversation we had. i think one of the things that has been a challenge in the relationship between canada and the united states is it has come in many cases, been focused on a single point of disagreement. a single potential point of disagreement. a single pipeline. and i made the point of saying much broader of the importance and the work we have to do together on issues of shared interests and issues we perhaps have disagreements on. host: as you hear canada's new prime minister, what changes between our two countries? guest: first i am going to say what you see in that clip is a very restrained, button-down

justin trudeau. which is not the justin trudeau we have seen to the campaign. you have seen him on the yoga floor, you have seen him kissing babies. so what you see in front of you is a very button-down statesmanlike presentation. host: mr. trudeau's associates insist he is pragmatic above all else. guest: that is very interesting. so, pragmatism is the one thing i, as a canadian, worry about what this new government because he has seemed to make a lot of promises to a lot of people. very first sort of pollen -- sort of foreign policy speech. he called the canada-u.s. relationship not just important, but for canada definitional. so he really gets the important of the canada-u.s. relations,

and they need to have a very engaged, very integrated, very collaborative relationship with the united states. i think unfortunately under harper, there was a lot of chest bumping, a lot of we won't take no for an answer. that may be important to get a particular interest across, but it wasn't comfortable. i don't think it was comfortable for the american interlocutors. around town, i hear a lot of people say we are glad that this new trudeau is back. we weren't comfortable with the previous posture of harbor. we really think we can work with this guy. isn't he good-looking? can you tell us more about it? canada has never been more interesting than washington than it has been this week. left, nowanada turns a chance for justin trudeau and

the liberals to see if they can run the canadian economy. full storyof story -- available online at wsj.com. (202) 748-0003 for canadians. our guest is laura dawson, director of the wilson international center. caller: hi. i just want to make the comment i am glad to do was elected. harper was not a good leader, in my opinion. canada really needs to drop that. it undermines the fight against global warming. it is one of the most dirty sources of oil on the planet, and trudeau, as i understand it, has supported the keystone, which is troubling. i know he is really into the green movement. i am hoping canada moves in that direction. but i think that -- i was really upset the green party couldn't

have got in because i think they are even better than trudeau on the environment. i would like your comment. trudeau has supported the keystone, so could you please comment on that? and don't you think that canada should drop the keystone? host: thank you, brian. we'll get a respond. guest: thank you for bringing up that issue, which really has been a touchstone for canada-u.s. relations. one ofstone pipeline is a bunch of pipelines that run between canada and united states. and i can't really argue the science and whether or not oil from canada's oilsands has a greater affect on the ozone layer then oil extracted -- than oil extracted from other places, but i think to do was more pragmatic in his recognition that whatever the u.s. decides to do about the keystone

pipeline is a matter of u.s. domestic politics. it is a matter of what the president and the state department and the people of the united states think about their energy and environmental future. it is not a slap in the face for canada. so while i think a majority of canadians support the -- the transportation of oil, the expectation of oil -- because that is the main thing of our economy -- a number of people of the recognize that this is a decision the united states has to make. host: a reference to richard nixon, when he predicted justin trudeau would become the next prime minister. a photograph of trudeau and his young wife holding young justin trudeau, four months of age. though, because we carry the nixon tapes. and one of the nixon tapes, he is in a conversation with john conley and he refers to your

trudeau as -- refers to year -- pierre trudeau as, quote, that sob. caller: with all respect to ms. dawson, i think her description of pierre trudeau is rather biased, and perhaps applies in some parts to eastern canada. in western canada, pierre trudeau is not a hero. i thought her description of our prime minister, harper, was also biased. many people throughout the world think canada was one of the best run economies. and i think it was a bit unfair to summarily dispense with him in my view and many people's views. perhaps something like 30% of canadians -- [indiscernible] stephen harper was the best

prime minister in our lifetime. so i just wanted to provide a bit of a different perspective. ms. dawson those not reflect a complete view of this election. the young trudeau is very bright and very probably confident, rather green in another sense, but i thought it was very unfair, ms. dawson, the way you characterized our former pierre trudeau and former stephen harper. guest: i am going to take another chance to bet that here and try to redirect -- chance at bat here and try to redirect those comments. i did say that his governance was ray strong. he steered canada through a global financial crisis, and no one can take that away from him. i didn't say that pierre trudeau was the best prime minister canada ever had. he represented an important burning -- turning point.

he really did put canada on the world stage. as somebody who was raised in alberta, i understand there is a lot of into the be towards that prime minister, especially towards the later stages. and that, you know, it was definitely time for a change. i also recognize the conservatives kept 99 seats in canada, which is no small thing. most of those seats are concentrated in alberta and saskatchewan. so it was a surprising victory, a surprising majority for -- for trudeau and the liberals, but that doesn't discount the important role the conservative still play in canada. want to get more information and background on the life and career of justin trudeau, you can check it out online at cnn.com. we will go to john joining us from beaverton, oregon.

good morning. caller: good morning, laura. i was originally born in halifax, nova scotia. guest: that is great. caller: i guess you could call me a blue nose or. guest: i definitely could. [laughter] caller: i had a question. we were talking about stephen harper's best run economics, in terms of steering canada through the economic crisis. but wasn't that done with a little bit of austerity way of economics? and wasn't there a little bit of game playing with, you know, how he was getting canada through the economics? i can: well, i will say -- tell you are from canada because you still say "about" like i do. i think stephen harper was really good at steering the canadian economy through the financial crisis. i'm still going to give him that.

but was canada already on a pretty good track as a result of previous governance decisions? absolutely. one of the reasons canada did well was because we had very conservatively governed and managed banks. as you know, we only have a very small number of banks in canada and they play by very strict rules. so we didn't have the kind of withis with a different -- different times of financial products that the united states did. so harper's job was to steer. he didn't have to reinvent the financial and economic governance. host: what is a bluenoser? guest: someone who comes from nova scotia. if you look on the back of the canadian dime, you'll see a beautiful sailing ship, called the bluenose. host: and this is from rick. the urban centers went with the

liberal. guest: yes. absolutely. i think he represented a very younger, maybe hiper approach to governance. there were new voters who came out who did not can mount -- come out in previous elections. more young people came out. as i mentioned earlier, one of our previous callers thinks i am a cheerleader for justin trudeau. i think it is an important change for canada, but i'm not wholly convinced he is going to be able to do everything that his supporters believe he is going to be able to do. some people really think that he is, you know, a panacea for everything in canada. the bureaucrats, the civil service expects he is going to be giving them the respect that they deserve that they never --

that they feel they didn't get from harper. they are going to bring back the -- [indiscernible] they are going to legalize marijuana. they are going to cut taxes for the poor, raise taxes on the rich. they are going to invest in infrastructure. they are going to start a more human rights focused foreign defense policy for canada. there is a lot of stuff on the trudeau table. and this is a relatively green government. they had 34 members of parliament in the last election, so they don't have a lot of experience as members of parliament or members of cabinet. host: from troy, montana, georgia is next to caller: yes. -- next. caller: yes. how big of an impact did obama's organizers have in getting to know elected? guest: [laughter] canadians watched the obama of

election very, very closely. they say it is like a telescope. you all watch us through a telescope from a distance and say, hey, how is it going up there? we watch you through that telescope reversed, so we looking in minute detail. we watch c-span every night. so we are really tuesday to what is going on in the u.s. canadians watched what happened with barack obama and the "yes we can" campaign. i think that canadians were really charged up by that sense that big changes were possible. that if you didn't like the status quo, you could get out there and knock on doors and change it. and no matter what party you support in canada, i think that hope for a change and tomorrow can be a new day is a very important messages wherever you live. host: our guest is lauren dawson of the wilson center.

we have a line for canadian 0003.ents at (202) 748-0003 fo they are stacked up at the u.s. border. that is where most of the population lives. if you pockets of north in cities like edmonton -- if you pockets up north in cities like edmonton -- a few pockets up north in cities like edmonton. host: let me ask you about the canadian currency. guest: as someone who really took advantage of the shop border -- cross-border shopping, i liked it when the dollar was high. when the canadian dollar was just about par or even higher than the u.s. dollar. but as a canadian manufacturer, somebody who is trying to sell

products to the united states, it is much better when our dollar is valued lower, when our dollar comes in at about $.75. which is where it is about now. it is challenging for us when the u.s. has an economic crisis because the canadian currency follows the u.s. like a roller coaster. except when you guys go down, we go out. so we kind of go in opposite directions. likeyes, canadians cross-border shopping. canadians love visiting the united states. almost every canadian visits of the united states. we, canadians, or like to get americans visiting canada more often. since 9/11 and the passport requirements america has, tourism numbers have fallen off sharply. let's go to -- host: let's go to tony in sioux falls. caller: i would like to know if

she thinks that they would be able to get those progressive programs done up there. will they be able to afford fixing everything and education? guest: yet. that is a great question, tony. as i said, they have a lot on their plate. i think they are going to have to be really selective. they are talking about doing deficit spending on stimulus programs because it is true, with the price of oil so low right now, the canadian economy has been hurting. so it really is important to find ways to prop people up on a temporary basis, but also to give middle-class folks a bit of a break. as you probably know, canada is a little bit different in its social policy anyway. like it or not, i think they've got pretty good health care and

that we have the universal health care. i've got pretty good education. pretty good opportunities for canadians. but trudeau is, i think, going to try to pull canada into the next century, into the next generation through investment in infrastructure, innovation, education, high tech. really trying to position canada for what the economy will look like in the future. i think he is looking at where the puck is going, not where the puck has been. host: and this is from stella. tell us about the queen's influence. guest: [laughter] well, the queen has a relatively limited influence on canadian politics. the queen's representative is the governor general in canada, and the governor general is responsible for deciding whether or not there is sufficient support for the members of

canada so or party in that we can open parliament. the governor general decides whether -- in consultation -- whether there is enough support for the prime minister's party to go ahead and govern. or if not, he decides to pull the plug and say, you guys go back, the parliament is not viable, go back and try this again. in a couple of areas, the opening and closing of parliament, the governor general, and therefore the queen, very important. but other times, the queen in canada is mostly a ceremonial figurehead. of herortance relationship with europe during world war ii was a very big deal. my grandmother, my aunts and uncles, they really hold the queen in very high regard. the younger generation is not as attentive. host: and a comment on your earlier point about canadian

politics, canadians are following america's lead, moving progressive. bravo, canada! you can send us a tweet, @cspanwj. the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air, go ahead. guest: hi, alex. caller: thank you. my question is, from my understanding, the canadian social security is scheduled to because of them investing money and investing the social security money properly versus the united states. our politicians use the social security deposit as a piggy bank whenever they need money. and then they always cry that there is not enough money in social security. why don't they stop stealing from us? guest: [laughter] i can't comment on the u.s.

social security system, but what i can comment on is canada, like the united states, has an aging population. all these baby boomers that we have, but we love them. i am close to being a baby boomer myself. they are all entering retirement. they are needing more support, more care, and they are also wanting the payouts for the investments that they have made into social security all of their lives. so that is the challenge for all of our governments. and the way that canada has been trying to do with that has been through immigration policy. we haven't had enough of our own young people, so you need to import some young people, import some workers to support the social security system. canada has had a pretty open system of immigration and it has served as well, but the problem i think recently is that canada's doors are going open and close, open and close.

sometimes we have things to learn from the u.s. about immigration, about managing social capital. so i think there is reason for our two countries to be talking about managing folks coming in from other countries. host: canada has a new government and a new prime minister. that is our topic with laura dawson. from arlington, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. i am on the other line. i'm a canadian living in america, and i am probably a little bit older than your guest. historically, i remember some things that actually she is deceptive to your viewers. when justin's father was in office, our first care is a, pierre trudeau was count -- prime minister when -- [indiscernible] -- found strangled in his own car by his own cross. and that is something that has

not been a conversation in the current trudeau conversation. in terms of immigration, mr. trudeau was very much for open immigration, which actually changed canada. we had an important of immigrants from the -- import of immigrants from the philippines. many came over as domestics and nannies, and they formed unions, which has created a new impt that of america has yet to accept. our unions again to demand days off. i'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but i think it is important for your inst to be factually correct clarifying that she does not speak for every canadian, nor is she enough of an expert to know much much -- what went on during my time. guest: you are quite right, i don't speak for every canadian. there is 34 million, more or less, canadians. which is more -- about the size

of california. so canadians have also to different opinions and different lives. and i could never presume to speak for all of them. i do want to point out, human a good point with what we call the slq crisis in canada, when there were acts of domestic terrorism where there were explosions and where there were kidnappings. and this had to do with the independence movement in quebec. and pierre trudeau, i think, did a pretty good job of first of all having a conversation about the need for french and quebec identity to become equal, to be not subservient to canada anymore. and we can see in justin trudeau syncretism, ash

merger that reflects very much how that conversation has evolved in canada. we still, of course, have issues between french and english. one of the official parties of canada is a separatist party, but i think the difference between key or trudeau -- pierre trudeau's time and justin trudeau's time reflects canada. host: a quick question. caller: good morning. it doesn't surprise me that candidate is going to the i think the whole world is going to the left and a bunch of crepe, like same-sex marriage. i am 72 years old and i have never seen so much cap in my life. -- crap in my life. thanks, bye. guest: you are in minnesota so you are practically canadian. these are a couple of important distinctions. also relative to some slight

differences. the liberal party of canada is not a left leaning party in the sort of u.s. definition of left leaning. it is really much more a centrist party on its economic and rights issues. private property, individual rights. where it is more what americans would call liberal, or left leaning, would be in terms of social issues. rights, of individual religious rights, and same-sex marriage, and no discrimination on the basis of various things that one could discriminate about. so the liberal party and canada is socially liberal, but fairly centrist on other issues. host: you did touch on this earlier, but a tweet that says, will canada's legalization make it on this program?

trudeau did say- he wanted to legalize marijuana. guest: marijuana has been functionally decriminalized and most restrictions in canada for years and years. folks are just not prosecuted for carrying small amounts of marijuana in canada. so what this would do would be to sort of formalized the practices that have already been going on. but what is really funny is i remember 10, 15 years ago, the policy around marijuana in canada was, like, well, we are going to tolerate marijuana use, but we do want to go on front and legalize it because the americans would get really upset about that. and it would be seen as a slippery slope to worse things, so we do want to irritate the americans. but then you guys got ahead of us. so this is sort of canada catching up formally what it has

probably already been doing informally. host: laura dawson, the director for the wilson center, a native of canada. thank you very >> on the next washington journal, joshua gordon on the congress and the debt ceiling. weisbergerter marcus on programs such as the f 35 fighter. callsays, we take your and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. communicators,e

vice chair of the energy and commerce committee talks about cyber security and data breach legislation. mckinnon,ned by john technology reporter for the wall street journal. >> as people become subjected to these breaches, they come to realize that it is not if you have your data breached, it is when is your data going to be breached. standard andral setting a period of target current framework of time that companies have to inform consumers and have penalties for enforcement. those are appropriate steps that should be taken and they are the steps that are covered in the data security legislation that we have worked on. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern

time on "the communicators." presents "landmark cases: the book." it explores 12 historic supreme court decisions including v.bury v. madison, brown board of education, miranda v. arizona, and roe v. wade. written by veteran supreme court journalists and published by c-span in cooperation with cq press. for a cases is available dollars very from shirts -- landmark cases available for $8.95. " withight on c-span, "q&a

the are times national political reporter amy chozick. that is followed by british prime minister david cameron taking questions from the house of commons. later, presidential candidate donald trump in miami. this week on "q&a," amy chozick. she talks about her career in journalism prior to joining "the times." brian: how would you describe your beat in "the new york times? " amy: i have the hillary beat. people think, you cover one person? but it is the entire universe om