All Episodes
Previous Next
April 16, 2025 17:59-20:03 - CSPAN
02:03:55
Canadian Prime Minister Debate
|

Speaker Time Text
unidentified
For the people at the very top.
Are there billionaires who might be using tax loopholes creatively?
Yeah, sure.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the income distribution and the tax distribution are terribly skewed.
This remains an incredibly progressive system with very high compliance rates.
We should be proud of the fact that we have so many Americans paying in, even billionaires.
And we have to look at our tax system as one that is hardly broken.
It needs fixing.
It needs repairs.
But it hasn't been utterly destroyed by the 2017 law.
It's been made stronger.
All right.
So, you know, look, 55 corporations, huge corporations, pay zero in taxes.
Tesla, for many years, pays zero in taxes.
It is a system that those at the top, we really have two tax systems.
If you're a plumber, if you're a nurse, you pay taxes every two weeks.
If you're a billionaire, you may never pay taxes on your gains.
If you get all the stock and you don't sell it, you may never ever be taxed on it.
That doesn't make any sense.
We should have one tax system that treats everybody the same, and the very wealthy need to pay their fair share.
Live to Quebec Now, where candidates to be Canada's next prime minister are participating in a French language debate with English translation.
Hosted by the Leaders' Debate Commission, this is live coverage on C-SPAN.
Tonight, who will score points?
Who will convince you?
Who will reassure you?
Who will inspire you?
Welcome to the Federal Leaders' Debate 2025.
The word tariff is one of the most beautiful words in the dictionary.
This election is the most important of our lives.
We will never be an American state, ever.
The U.S. threat is huge, but there are other issues at stake.
We choose Quebec.
Donald Trump has attacked our country.
We have to defend our workers.
Live from Maison Radio-Canada and Montreal, this is the Leaders' Debate 2025 with Patrice Roy.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the French Leaders' Debate.
We are joined by Mark Carney, leader of the Liberal Party, Pierre Polyev, leader of the Conservative Party, Yves-François Blanché, leader of the Bloc Quikois, and Joe Meet Singh, leader of the New Democratic Party.
Good evening to all four of you.
Good evening.
Thank you for being here.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's what, 6 p.m. and a few seconds.
This important event has been moved forward to give as many people as possible the opportunity to tune in without missing a decisive moment for another one of our passions, hockey.
And by the way, I'll go off script here for a few seconds and say that the Montreal Canadians, you'd better win.
I also would like to say that the leaders' invitations were managed by the Leaders' Debates Commission, and the podium places on the set were designated at random.
But the questions, subjects, and editorial choices are ours.
I'll be managing speaking time fairly within a fair limit.
There are five themes tonight.
Obviously, the trade war with the United States, the cost of living, energy and climate, immigration and foreign affairs, and finally, identity and sovereignty.
And I'll also have a few rapid-fire questions at the end of the debate.
This debate is your debate this evening.
You will be free to speak as much as possible.
The only rule that I ask of you is not to speak at the same time.
If you start talking over one another, I'll ask Pascal, our sound engineer, to turn off your mics.
So let the debate begin.
Or I was going to say, good game.
So we'll move on to our first opening question.
You'll have 45 seconds each to answer.
This election, according to many, has been hijacked by Trump.
So to assert our sovereignty early in this debate, I'll ask you to name two things you'd put forward, concrete things, that will change the lives of Canadians, but that have nothing to do with the United States.
45 seconds, Mr. Carney, your first question.
First of all, thank you very much, Mr. Heroin.
And I'd like to thank everyone watching at home for joining us tonight.
And I'd like to thank the other leaders for your service to Canada.
Two things that don't include Mr. Trump.
First of all, we need to double the rhythm of construction of new homes here in Canada.
That's absolutely fundamental.
And the second thing, we need to promote and strengthen our cultural institutions in Canada.
45 seconds, Mr. Polyev.
Two things that you would promise Canadians to change their lives that have nothing to do with the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Roi, and thanks to my colleagues for being here today.
Clearly, life is no longer affordable.
The promise of an affordable life is broken.
I have a plan to make life more affordable by cutting taxes by 15%.
That's one thing that will reward work for the middle class and for seniors who've already worked.
Second thing, we're going to scrap the GST on new houses and we're going to incentivize cities to reduce their taxes too so that our young people can save up to $100,000 on a new home and restore the commons of Canada.
Mr. Blanchet, I would like to come back to something that I do all year long.
First of all, thank you for having welcomed us.
I have been waiting for this moment for a long time.
I'd like to insist on two things for Quebec that I was talking about before the Trump crisis is Quebec's right to have a different and open economy, open to the world, based on its own natural resources, on its own attachment to a green economy, but also Quebec's right to be different, to have a different language, to have a different culture, to have different values, to have different immigration models that need to succeed.
These are elements that should always have been mentioned, but that have a particularly new sense with this new crisis.
Great.
Mr. Singh, 45 seconds.
Two things that have nothing to do with the American.
Thank you for the question.
Good evening, everybody.
First, I'd like to talk a little bit about values.
What are the values that underpin the answer to this question?
Canadians and Quebecers like taking care of one another.
We come together.
That is what we believe in.
That is a basic value for us.
And this value is embodied in our public health care system, Has nothing to do with the U.S. and we want our health care system to be nothing like the American one.
We will expand PharmaCare so that everyone can access the medications they need.
And I also want to talk about dental care.
I also want to expand that program, which owes itself to us.
Thank you.
I'd like to reassure you, Mr. Singh.
I think you were disappointed.
We are going to talk about health as well, and I'll ask questions about that later.
First theme, therefore, obviously, the trade war.
Trump is going to be tough.
We don't know what's in store with him.
I don't think any solution is going to be possible.
We always thought they were our ally.
It doesn't make sense.
You can't reason with him.
The government will have to stand firm, stay firm.
We have to put him in his place, otherwise, he'll destroy us totally.
The answer should be pragmatic.
It would be good to pause some of our services to the U.S.
They need us.
An eye for an eye.
No messing around.
Get us out of this mess.
We need a leader who can make decisions to destabilize Trump and make him respect Canada.
What does he plan to do with the new President of the United States?
What do you plan to do with this president?
That is the elephant in the room.
So, for your information, there are 1,600, 73 days left in Donald Trump's term.
Why do you think that you are the best person here tonight to negotiate with Mr. Trump?
Mr. Polyev, 35 seconds.
First of all, we will never be an American state.
We will remain sovereign.
On my first day as Prime Minister, I will restart negotiations to accelerate a deal that will put an end to the tariffs and protect our sovereignty.
We can't control Trump, but at the same time, we have to control what we can control.
We need to reverse liberal economic policies that have weakened our country.
We need to unleash our resources, cut taxes, and bring jobs back home so that we can face Trump from a position of structure.
All right, well, first of all, in a crisis, you have to plan for the worst possible situation, and you have to have a plan, a plan to build a strong economy here in Canada.
And we need to react with strength.
And those are the elements that will allow us to succeed with Mr. Trump.
He respects strength.
He respects people who understand how the world works and who understand how the private sector works.
And Canada needs to create other options, new, reliable partnerships around the world.
And that's what I'll do.
Thank you, Mr. Carney.
Mr. Blanché, Trump will hang from his own noose because their economy is dependent on ours.
But there will be a lot of harm done to Canada, to Europe, to Mexico before then.
We have to realize that our joint GDP is bigger than the states.
Our population is bigger than the states.
And so retaliation is going to hurt the states.
But we have to negotiate in a rational way.
And we shouldn't fall to fear.
And we shouldn't spend fear for political reasons.
Conclusions.
It's all about priorities.
For me, now is the time to invest, not cut.
It is the time to protect what we hold dear, our farmers, our culture, the French language.
These things should not be sacrificed.
It is time to defend who we are, what our values are.
And we believe in helping one another.
That's what we will do.
How?
We will strengthen our health care system.
We will not let it be Americanized.
That is crucial.
We must defend who we are.
So, open debate to begin now for about 15 minutes.
Mr. Polyev, you have called Kearney a political grifter, a globalist banker who's deconnected from reality.
And Mr. Carney, you've said Pierre Polyev is a career politician who knows nothing about how the real world works.
So I ask you the question, which of you first is capable of standing up to Donald Trump?
Mr. Polyev, I am, because I'm going to put Canada first.
I will never compromise Canada's interests and I will control what we can control here.
Obviously, no one will be able to control the decisions of Donald Trump, but we can control our economy, our domestic economy, by overturning liberal economic policies that have weakened our country and made us more dependent on the American system.
Mr. Polyev, you would make Canada more like the Aztec states.
You would Americanize our health care system, privatize it.
Everyone knows that's what conservatives say.
That's not true.
Mr. Kearney, you said that you're better.
All right.
First of all, I know how to negotiate.
And I agree with Mr. Singh.
We need to start by saying what's never going to be on the table.
The French language, Quebec's culture, and supply management will never be on the table.
Our resources, that's the first thing.
Second, in terms of Mr. Blanchet's point, the opportunities that we have with the European Union are there.
And I've already started building new relationships with the European Union.
As Prime Minister, I met with the President of France and with the President of the European Commission.
There's a lot to unpack in there, let's be honest.
And perhaps it's right.
You say that you're an expert in managing a crisis, but you say you're a negotiator, but perhaps negotiating with tax havens.
But when it comes to trade agreements, I haven't seen the proof.
We apparently have to believe you with no political experience.
And so I find this kind of funny because people say we have to unite and work together.
On the one hand, you have never spoken to me before this evening.
You're not trying to figure out how to collaborate between equals Quebec, Canada, Mexico, European partners.
You're trying to score divisive points that only serves the United States of America.
All right.
I've just started as Prime Minister.
I've been Prime Minister for a month.
In the first week, I signed an agreement with the Premiers of all the provinces, the Premier of Quebec and the Premiers of all the provinces and territories concerning free trade within Canada.
It's also an agreement that deals with trade corridors.
That's an example.
That's an example.
I haven't sat with any premiers.
You've sat with MPs that will be elected at the same level as you're elected.
The problem, Mr. Kearney, is that your party has been in power for 10 years.
And in that time, it's not meetings that are going to change things.
It's your policies that have blocked resources, C-69, which blocks not just pipelines, but also dams, mines, and liquid natural gas exploration.
We have a deal with Europe, a trade deal.
The Conservatives negotiated it, but Liberal legislation has prevented development, and you continue to support those laws.
Those laws need to be repealed and replaced with laws that will unleash our resources and allow us to export abroad and allow us to become truly economically energized.
We'll talk about that later sovereign and have energy sovereignty priorities.
Mr. Carney, unfortunately, your priority is, well, you had time to meet with the king, but you did not increase the amount of money people receive when they lose their jobs due to the trade war.
These days, people receiving EI get maybe half of their salary.
For people who have already lost their jobs, that is not enough.
It won't cover the bills.
It won't cover their rent costs.
That shows your priorities.
For me, workers are number one.
We need a system to support our workers.
We'll hear some in a few seconds, but Mr. Carney, response, and then I have another question for Blanchet.
First of all, we need to fight in a trade war.
We need to fight with counter-tariffs.
And all the money collected from our counter-tariffs will go directly to workers and the businesses that are the most affected by this trade war.
They won't be used for tax cuts the way that Mr. Polyev is going to do them.
You always want to increase them.
You're a Liberal Planet.
Started as Prime Minister for a fourth Liberal term I've just started.
You were Justin Trudeau's economic advisor.
Have you forgotten that?
Honestly, let me cut in here.
Both of them would cut taxes for billionaires and millionaires.
They have already done it in the past.
Your first step was to reduce taxes for the millionaires.
Pierre Polyev would do the same thing.
You're not thinking of regular people.
We've cut the consumer carbon tax.
That's interesting, Mr. Blanchet.
You've been telling Canadians for several days that it would be better to have a minority government.
You said it clearly.
With Trump, can Canadians not want a majority government that's stronger?
I don't know where that reasoning comes.
A minority government would be weaker than a majority government.
Go tell that to the Germans who have only governed through coalitions recently.
Many countries have coalitions, and if that is the population of the people, then great.
At this point, it's possible that Canadians and Quebecers, perhaps, choose to trust in someone who has the least experience in politics.
Quebec has a different economy, different interests, different everything.
We want a parliament where our economic difference is taken into account.
Let's talk a little bit about the problem.
The whole point of a minority government is to help people to make a difference in people's lives.
But honestly, Mr. Blanchette, unfortunately, in the last minority government, you showed that you were as useless as the monarchy is.
You did nothing for people.
What is worse, you voted against measures that would help Quebecers, dental care, pharmacare.
These are measures that have helped hundreds of thousands of Quebecers, Quebec jurisdiction, dental care, health care, people in Quebec, pharmacare, people in the city.
The money that we send to Ottawa, Ottawa does not have the expertise or its jurisdiction.
We are not in the middle of the market.
Mr. Droin.
Mr. Douan.
Please let me finish one sentence.
Please wrap it up.
When we want to be effective, we give the money to the experts, those who have the legal jurisdiction, to spend the money.
And that is Quebec in this case.
The NDP gave $2 billion to an insurance company giving money.
It's fine until now, but Mr. Carney, in terms of the minority government, Mr. Rouen, we are in a crisis, the most serious crisis of our lives.
We need to react with resounding, overwhelming strength.
Yes, we need to cut a few taxes.
Yes, we need to cut bureaucracy.
But the government needs to act in a time of crisis.
So we need to have a government ready to act.
But when you were Justin Trudeau's economic advisor, you weakened our economy.
We need economic sovereignty, and that means bringing back production to Canada.
And I would reverse liberal policies around development.
I would expedite construction permits.
We would have pre-approved permits.
And that would, and I would also make sure that we could send our energy to Europe to break Europeans' dependence on Putin, on Putin, and to break our dependence on the U.S. Conservatives and the Liberals both prioritize the ultra-rich, not you, not regulators.
That's the difference.
We have a segment on energy and pipelines, so we'll come back to that later.
There are people who are watching us who are concerned.
There will be negotiations with the Americans, obviously.
Well, you'll all say supply management here, but I'd like to say that Canada gave up market shares during the last three trade deal negotiations.
We're talking about more than $450 million a year in losses for Canadian farmers.
So what is something you wouldn't concede in a negotiation?
We will defend supply management.
I will defend the French language.
I will defend our health care system.
I will defend our decisions and our laws.
We will always be sovereign.
And the way we're going to restore that sovereignty, Canadian sovereignty, is by making our economy stronger.
We need to cut red tape by 25% for businesses.
We need to reduce development charges, taxes on housing.
We need to support labor and energy and domestic production.
That's how we can be more sovereign.
Mr. Carney in the face of the U.S. nice to say supply management, but we've said it three times and it hasn't been done.
Well, this is the first time that I will be at the table if I am elected as prime minister.
I've said a number of times, and since the beginning of my campaign in Maurici, we'll never touch supply management.
We won't put Quebec culture or the French language on the table.
And I think we all agree on that point.
And that's important.
We have to be very clear from the beginning when talking to the Americans.
One area that we don't agree on is that Pierre Polyev would cut our health care system.
You said it, everyone knows it.
Said that you want to cut, you would cut dental care.
Not true.
PharmaCare.
You called them bad ideas.
And unfortunately, Mr. Kearney's plan to budget the operating budget in three years would lead to $43 billion worth of segment cost of living.
We'll talk about tax cuts later and choices.
And we will underscore that none of you has tabled a costed plan.
These are just promises.
Mr. Blanche, once again.
Second of all, we are not the ones who decide what's on the table.
If Mr. Trump says, I want to talk about this, no one will be able to stop him from at least talking about it.
We've never sacrificed the principle of supply management, so it's empty words.
Little bits have been sacrificed every single time at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars every single time.
All Mr. Trump wants is a wave of Wisconsin milk with hormones, with no protection against antibiotics.
What would you do concretely?
We will bring back an act that everyone approved.
The Liberals before Carney approved it.
Everyone had approved it, but then there were certain intrigues with unelected senators.
There's a number of unelected members of parliament that seem to be making decisions.
What would protect better?
Well, maybe I agree with that law, but my point is that we need to invest in Canada.
Our plan, which will be unveiled this weekend, will catalyze $500 billion, $500 billion of investment in Canada over the next five years.
And that will be important in our negotiations with Mr. Trump.
I'd like us to listen to a worker together from Stellantis.
For him, this crisis with the U.S. is very clear.
He's just lost his job.
I was laid off by Stellantis because of the trade war with the U.S. How will your government stop Mr. Trump from attacking our industries one by one?
And how will you protect our jobs?
Concrete measures.
How will you help workers?
You all have different proposals.
Mr. Poyev, first of all, I already announced a fund to help companies keep jobs, to keep workers in their jobs, because the priority of workers is to keep working.
Secondly, there will be EI to protect people who have fallen on rough times.
I will be there for people who've lost their jobs.
At the same time, we need to stimulate investment to strengthen our economy and to encourage new companies.
We need to unleash our natural resources and we need to create more jobs in resource industries.
We also want to create more jobs for tradespeople at a time when they need work to build new houses.
Let's stay on workers.
Mr. Sangh, if a business wants to sell cars in Canada, they should be required to have a factory in Canada, a presence in Canada.
And I would put this in a law.
We are a major market.
If you want to sell here, you should create jobs here.
And let me add, the first thing Mr. Polyev said in 2022 when he became Conservative leader is that he would cut EI contributions.
So Not credible that he would increase support to people when he talked about eliminating contributions for workers.
You've said you want to go back to a pandemic-style wage subsidy.
The principle of that.
We said that even before the campaign to paraphrase Mr. Poilievre, EI is fairly broken.
People have difficulty accessing it, and I disagree with Mr. Carney's suggestion to say that money will be invested in training.
You've lost your job, but we're going to train you, and you're going to have another kick at the can at the age of 55.
Not a good idea.
The idea of the wage subsidy was by keeping to allow the worker to have a link to their job by giving them a subsidy so that the employer, should they want to, could rehire them someone who had the skill to do the job.
So there would be a transitional period where there could be temporary job losses, like for the case we've just heard.
Well, first of all, three things.
All the money from our counter-tariffs will go directly to workers.
Second, we have a strategic fund for manufacturing in Canada, specifically for the auto sector.
And third, our counter-tariff system for the automotive sector contains an incentive of $7 billion for the automakers to keep production and workers here in Canada.
That's very important.
But the reason that we've done all of this is so that we can have strong positions to negotiate with Trump.
Just to conclude, I think we need to encourage Canadians to buy Canadian-made cars.
And that's why, as long as there are tariffs, we will scrap the GST on cars and trucks that are built here, mainly built here in Canada.
I think the tariff is a good idea.
What allows companies to buy and sell more?
Then, yes, I do agree with that approach.
70% Mr. Pauly have copied our idea.
We announced the GST lifting for Canadian-made cars beforehand.
Now, there are a lot of things that are in all of your platforms, so we'll come back to that.
Now, 70% of Canadians say that they're buying fewer American products.
It's a big number.
You leaders, could you please name me one made-in-USA product that you no longer buy?
I buy my own strawberries.
So you don't buy strawberries anymore?
I buy Quebec strawberries, and I do my own shopping, by the way.
What products have you not bought, Mr. Carney?
No more wine, no more alcohol, no more American alcohol.
I do my own shopping and I cook at home.
Lots of products.
Fruits, there's a lot of Canadian fruits.
So you're making an effort.
Yes, I'm making an effort with apples, other fruit, strawberries, strawberries.
Everyone is eating a lot of strawberries these days.
I bring it up because I do my own grocery shopping, which Kearney does not.
This is a delicious conversation.
It's beef in my case.
I buy Canadian beef.
It's the best beef in the world.
But I never buy American strawberries either.
Organic beef from Quebec is also not a good idea.
Well, let's share some of that.
All right.
It's very beautiful to see.
Our next theme is the cost of living.
He can manage our money.
We're having a hard time here.
I hope they'll be able to balance the budget and maintain the same quality of services.
Inflation, lower taxes.
I earn a good salary, but it's hard to pay for groceries, for childcare, for our kids, for everything.
Education is expensive.
Prices keep going up.
The middle class is hurting.
And for the poor, it's worse.
We're retired and we're counting every penny.
We're getting poorer.
I feel like no one really listens to young people on housing or the cost of living.
So, what does the future hold for us young people?
What does the future hold for young people?
I'll give you a few figures here very briefly.
I'm sure this won't come as a surprise, but in Montreal, housing prices have more than doubled over 10 years, from $300,000 to $671,000, remarkable growth in Toronto and Vancouver as well.
So, my question, and you'll have 35 seconds, first of all, how can we improve access to housing, for example, for this young woman that we just heard from, Mr. Blanchet?
Clearly, it's through the starting capital and another GST-based policy.
There needs to be access to capital for their down payment.
My children can't pay for a house.
A lot of them have jobs, good jobs.
It's essential that we give them a little boost using public money, for example.
And it's not during a crisis in cutting budgets that we will be able to do so.
We need to reduce speculation on house prices.
We need to invest in affordable housing, social housing, student housing, to give a good price and reduce pressure.
Thank you, Mr. Blanche.
Mr. Cities of Canada, I'm with you with all those who are having a hard time affording their groceries or young people who can't buy a house after a decade of liberal inflation.
Liberal policies have increased the cost of living the most in 40 years.
I will cut your taxes for the average worker by 15%.
We will scrap the GST on new homes and we will incentivize municipalities to speed up permits and construction so that young people can once again buy a home and restore the dream of home ownership.
In order to fix this crisis in the cost of living, we need to make sure that Canadians have more money in their pockets and they need to have more Canada in their pockets.
So that means a tax cut for the middle class.
And our plan is almost $800 per family, cut the GST on first homes and increase competition.
And in Canada, we have dental care, pharmacare, and daycares.
We need to protect that and we need to double new housing construction in Canada with our plan.
Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Singh.
Thank you.
When I talk to people and the cost of living comes up, there are two main topics.
First, grocery costs.
Second, housing costs for groceries.
Major grocery giants are gouging us.
We saw this with the price of bread, the price of meat.
They drive prices up, and they are gouging the Canadian public.
We would put price caps on essential groceries.
We would also stop corporate landlords from buying up affordable housing and apartments.
We are in it for you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Singh.
245,000 housing units were built in 2024.
You've all promised to massively accelerate the pace of that construction.
The Liberals have said $500,000.
The NDP, $600,000.
Mr. Sting, you're going to start this part of the open debate.
Do houses grow on trees?
We have a clear plan for how to make this happen.
First, we would not sell off our federal land.
We would keep it and we would build affordable housing on it.
100% affordable.
We would train Canadian workers to build more homes.
We also must keep the affordable housing that we do have.
And unfortunately, the two major parties have let rich speculators buy up affordable housing.
And now we have no more.
That's a major issue.
We need to keep our affordable housing and build more housing in general.
A couple of ideas.
First of all, I would like to talk for Quebec.
There are delays of hundreds of thousands of houses to be built, and we don't have the human resources to do so.
But there are initiatives for small housing, for social housing, modular housing that would allow us to build quicker with fewer resources and cheaper to accommodate as many people as possible.
But I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's financial framework because the Conservatives want to cut, cut, cut.
They're going to have to cut spending at some point as well.
The Liberals want to cut in revenue but increase expenditure.
There's some financial magic that's in there somewhere.
I would like to hear their financial framework or even their electoral platform.
But Mr. Carney, 500,000 housing units.
And we need to get started so that we can get the housing market working better with a reduction in bureaucracy at the municipal level and in fees.
But we are proposing a new institution, Build Canada Homes, which is going to build affordable homes using lumber from Quebec, using lumber from British Columbia, using Canadian wood, and using new Canadian technologies.
We are going to create a new industry.
I would say 500,000 units.
I mean, I could say 800,000,000.
Where is this coming from?
If I can have 35 seconds, we need to add funding of $25 billion for the development of affordable homes and $10 billion for Mr. Polyev.
You haven't costed your objective in our platform, which is going to come out in a few days.
But Mr. Kearney, you're repeating exactly the same promises that Justin Trudeau has been making for 10 years during the Liberal decade when you were the economic advisor.
The cost of housing has gone up.
And you inflated the cost of housing then, too.
You have a terrible record in England for real estate costs there, real estate prices.
The problem is that the Liberals want to build bureaucracy.
They want to balloon bureaucracy by creating new departments, new bureaucrats.
We don't need more bureaucrats.
We need more homes, more new doors on new homes for young families.
The reason why housing has become so expensive today is because of taxes and bureaucracy.
I will eliminate the GST on new homes.
I will incentivize cities to free up land and accelerate permits so that we can build, build, and build your home.
Let us talk records.
Mr. Polyev, you were absolutely.
How many homes did you build?
Over 200,000.
I'll tell you.
Six.
You built six homes.
200,000.
Six.
200,000.
We cannot believe it.
You asked the question.
Can I answer it?
I cannot believe, Mr. Polyev.
He only built six homes.
200,000.
He was in power.
Can I cancel?
We know the answer.
Can I answer?
It was $200,000 that year, and the cost of the average home was $450,000.
So thanks very much for reminding everyone of my record.
It was a good record.
During the 10 years the Conservatives were in power, rent doubled.
Housing costs doubled.
And then when the Liberals came in, they doubled again.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kearney benefited from the housing crisis when he was the board chair at Brookfield Investments.
His company benefited from the housing crisis by buying up affordable buildings and tripling rents.
Mr. Carney, okay.
Mr. Polyev's approach is everyone for themselves.
In the COVID crisis, he said, okay, let's cut taxes, let's cut bureaucracy.
This crisis, now that we're facing the greatest crisis of our lives, he's saying, cut taxes, cut bureaucracy.
In a crisis, you have to do that to a certain point, but you have to act as a government.
And if I may, you need to have capital to catalyze investment.
And with a small amount of catalyzing investment from the government of Canada, we can create huge private investment and a new Canadian industry.
Another proposal that I find interesting is to allow parents who have money in savings for their retirement to take the money temporarily to help for their kids' down payment.
That's not $500 billion that would be required.
These are not civil servants that will be fired.
This is a logical decision made by parents like myself who want to help their kids without money from the state with a tax measure that helps retirees who want to help their children.
Would that not be more concrete than programs after programs that are just empty words and for which there's no financial framework?
Yeah, I'll come back to that in a minute, but let's let Mr. Polyev conclude because you were having a conversation with Mr. Carney.
Mr. Kearney, in 2020 and 2021, you said that inflation wouldn't happen and that it would have been a good thing if it did.
You were quoted in the media and you even advised Justin Trudeau to print money and that's what caused our inflationary crisis.
You're just like Justin Trudeau.
You have exactly the same policies, the same approach.
We need change.
And you, Mr. Carney, you do not embody change.
You represent the ultra-rich.
Mr. Polyev is not Justin Trudeau.
I'm not Justin Trudeau either.
In this election, the question is: who is going to succeed?
Who is going to face Mr. Trump?
Same parties, same ministers, same caucus, same ideology, same hostility against Quebec.
It's not just because the leader changes that the philosophy will magically change overnight.
You are all proposing, or just about all of you, are proposing, tax cuts.
You'll see them up on the screen here.
Mr. Carney announced that on the first day of the campaign.
Mr. Polyev's been announcing them for a long time.
So for a couple earning $90,000 a year, you can see the numbers up here, $1,299 in savings for the Conservatives, $1,011 for the NDP, $577 for the Liberals.
And the cost of those measures is really what I want to underline here.
Mr. Polyev, you're spending more on tax cuts than the NDP or Liberals.
Now, you've all arrived here this evening with no costed financial plan.
It's been a long time since we've seen that at the time of the leaders' debate, the leaders don't have a costed plan.
So we don't know how you're going to pay for these tax cuts.
Now, I'm going to be careful how I word this, but don't you think it's irresponsible to Canadian voters to do this?
Mr. Carney, you said you've got the numbers, but where's your cost of planning?
As I've just said, we'll be presenting our costed platform this weekend.
But why not earlier at an event?
There are 10 days left in the election campaign.
It's about the same thing as Mr. Polyevre, as I've seen.
And it is going to be costed.
And the operational budget will be cleaned up.
We'll balance it in three years.
But at the same time, we will be investing in Canada and in Canadians.
Mr. Polyev, where would you make the cuts?
This comes back to my earlier question to Mr. Carney.
In terms of the costed plans, what do you have to hide?
Will transfers to provinces go down, for example?
We're going to cut consultants.
Believe it or not, a Canadian family is spending $1,400 in federal tax just to pay for consultants.
That's been a hundred percent increase.
I'm going to cut consultants.
Secondly, we're going to cut the cost of bureaucracy through attrition.
People will be retiring, and we don't need to replace all of them.
We can slowly, gradually reduce the cost of the bureaucracy.
Third, we're going to pass a dollar-for-dollar bill.
For every new dollar in spending, there will have to be a dollar in reduced spending.
And we are going to generate $70 billion more in revenue.
Mr. Kearney don't have a costed plan that we've seen.
We are the only party that has talked about ways to increase government revenues.
We've talked about closing tax loopholes, getting rid of tax havens.
Empowering the CRA to go after corporations that are not paying their taxes.
These are not tax increases.
These are taxes that are already supposed to be paid.
The CRA has said that tens of billions of dollars in revenues are being lost.
Pierre Polyev has been very honest with Canadians.
He will cut.
He will cut health.
He will not cut CI.
He said this back in 2022 when he became leader of the Conservative Party.
And Mark Kearney has also said very clearly that he would make massive money.
No, no.
He would cut $43 billion worth for the first time.
For the first time.
Mr. Carney, the Mr. Bonch.
No, that's not right at all.
I've said there is an operational budget that's over $200 billion a year.
And that budget has grown 9% year over year over the last 10 years.
We need to slow down that growth.
And we'll do that with technology.
We'll do that with attrition, as Mr. Poiliev has suggested.
And we can do that, and we will do that.
And it's necessary, but we're not going to cut transfers to individuals, nor transfers to the provinces.
So the provinces will not get less money.
Mr. Blanchet, is that what you believe?
Well, I have an issue with this.
These are Harry Potter financial frameworks.
You need a lot of magic to make it work.
There needs to be more money, but we're going to do cuts.
They want to be more conservative than the Conservatives.
Basic economics state that when there's a threat of recession or slowdown, that is when the state...
Well, that's why we're not saying cut taxes.
We're saying make good investments.
We want to invest in our military forces.
It's the time to do so with Canadian companies, the Quebec tramway that Mr. Polyev doesn't want to do.
That's what we have to do.
We have to have targeted investments, health transfers so that the Maison-Vroisement hospital can be renovated.
It's time to invest in infrastructure, public infrastructure, with public money so that everyone can keep their jobs.
So no tax cuts.
No, there wouldn't be a tax cut.
There would be a specific budget for it.
It's necessary.
We have to keep going.
They want to do one thing and the other.
Cut, but somehow make more money.
Something doesn't work.
We've started with the cost of living.
We have to cut taxes for the cost of living.
What Mr. Blanche has said is true.
You are talking about a magic spell here, Mr. Kearney.
This is one rare moment where we agree.
On February 16th, you sat down with Rosemary Biden and you said that you would cut spending in the operational budget.
Operational spending.
That's different.
You said one at a time, please, that this would affect transfers for health care and to individuals.
Mr. Blair, I have a question.
That's not right at all.
That's not right at all.
Mr. Carney, you'll have the opportunity to answer later.
The question that people are asking themselves, and you may have heard this, Mr. Singh, you know, you've promised that every Canadian will have a family doctor, that there will be vastly more nurses.
Does the federal government need to continue developing more national plans like pharmacare and dental care?
Or, option two, should they be giving more money to the provinces for health care?
Mr. Carney, you'll start off.
More programs or more money?
First of all, the priority for the federal government is to invest and to catalyze investment in the most serious crisis we're facing in our lives.
We need to catalyze private investment in our economy to create new and good jobs.
That's the first thing we need to do in terms of transfers to provinces for health care.
Yes, there are limits to the federal government's activity.
So no new programs.
Mr. Blanchet?
It's easy.
All premiers from the provinces and territories unanimously asked for a 35% health transfer.
I would like to re-explain it.
The federal government receives more money than it needs.
It needs $10, it gets 12.
Quebec needs $10, but it only gets $8.
So the federal government could take its surplus and say, I would like to invest in your jurisdictions.
The Liberals and the Conservatives agree on this, and the NDP loves butting its nose into provincial jurisdiction.
The Constitution sets out jurisdictions.
The easiest way is to give the money without conditions.
You've said that we do need to step in, that we need to have more programs like this.
Let me explain.
Absolutely, we need to increase health transfers, absolutely, in order to help out the provinces.
What is more, we are now in the midst of a crisis, a healthcare crisis.
It is being felt here in Quebec and all throughout the country.
We should recognize that a leader is someone who looks for solutions, not excuses.
I believe that we should be investing more in fixing problems.
And yes, we can work with the provinces to hire more health care workers.
We can work with them to get through this crisis.
PharmaCare is one area where everyone can come together to bring down the cost of medication.
We believe in helping people.
Deciding Quebec's priorities isn't your jurisdiction.
I don't know if you have to tell you how to do it.
It's money that you would refuse to give Quebec.
We can do two things at once so that we can transfer money and then work with the provinces and other solutions.
Mr. Broyev, more money to the provinces or more federal programs?
I think the federal government is taking too much tax revenues and delivering too little, and that's the Liberal track record after 10 years.
And the question for Canadians is: you can't afford your groceries and you can't afford your rent or your housing because it's too expensive now after three terms of Liberal government.
Will a fourth Liberal term change things for you enough for you to be able to buy a house and have a beautiful life?
For the health program, I didn't know that.
On health care, what I propose on that is a program that the federal government could coordinate, and that is to do with licenses for doctors and nurses.
It would be a voluntary program, as has previously existed, to allow immigrants to be licensed and be able to work in our hospitals to reduce your wait times.
So everyone agrees on health transfer.
The question is the 13 premiers of the 13 economies of Canada.
Canada doesn't have one economy, it has 13 economies.
These requests were made to stop the deterioration of the health care system.
Next theme: energy and climate.
The carbon tax was something that was supposed to help the environment, but now what are we doing for the environment?
It worries me a bit.
Our planet is starting to die.
I really want to see someone who can prioritize climate change and the economy in Canada.
We shouldn't be building a pipeline.
The environmental consequences are very serious, even if for ecological reasons it's not the best solution.
Well, I think we have to think about it.
There was a good project in place, but then it was dropped.
A pipeline would have a major impact.
We may have to make sacrifices if we want to be more independent.
Drill, baby, drill, says Donald Trump.
But I have a very simple question for you, and I would like just a simple answer as well.
You have 35 seconds open debate.
Do you want Canada to increase oil production?
Yes or no.
Mr. Singh, I would be in favour of investing in clean energy, renewable energy with our public money.
I would spend on projects like an East West Clean Energy Grid.
That's the sort of thing we need.
We need renewable energy for our future.
That is where we should invest our public funds.
So, more or less oil, or the same amount as right now?
You want to increase it?
That's what people want to know.
Are you increasing oil production?
There are a few measures that I support.
Investing in clean energy, bringing down our emissions in the open debate later.
But the question is very simple, I think.
Mr. Carney.
Yes, more oil so that we can reduce our imports, especially our imports from the United States, a country that is threatening us right now.
But in order to do that, we need to have low-risk oil.
Canada is a low-risk country, and low-cost oil.
Canada's more or less that right now, but we also need low-carbon oil because we need to be competitive over the long term.
So at the same time, we need to have pipelines.
We need to invest in carbon stockage, carbon capture as well.
That's very important for our competitive.
Mr. Polyev, should we produce more oil in Canada?
Yes.
And we have to be able to get it to market by pipeline.
Unfortunately, the other parties passed an unconstitutional law, C-69, which is a no-more pipelines bill.
And that's why Canadians and Quebecers now have to buy 139,000 barrels of U.S. oil every day.
I will repeal C-69 to allow for the construction of hydroelectric projects, mines, and also pipelines so that we can get around Donald Trump and be sovereign when it comes to energy.
There's a competition as to who will be the biggest oilhead here.
The Americans buy our oil, we buy their oil, because that's how geography works.
I want less oil, but let's just be clear.
The one that approved 9B for Enbridge was me when I was the Environment Minister, but I say that we have to progressively wean off of petrol and oil because the costs on families will be far worse than what Mr. Polyev says.
Paying for the consequences of climate change will cost billions of dollars every single year per family.
Let us invest in companies.
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.
I'd like to ask a question to launch the debate.
Mr. Carney, for 17 years now, the Liberals have been telling us that the only way to fight against climate change is to put a price on carbon with the carbon tax.
There were elections on this.
But the first day you came to power, you abolished this tax.
What should Canadians understand from this?
Is the fight against climate change no longer a priority for Liberals?
Not at all.
It is still a priority, and it's a priority for Canada.
We're talking a lot about diversifying our trade partners around the world.
The European Union, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in manufacturing and energy in all of our products so that we can have better access to that market.
But in terms of the carbon tax, we cut the consumer carbon tax.
And that covers about 6% of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
We are maintaining the industrial carbon tax for big polluters, but we're creating a new market so that major polluters will pay people and households to make clean decisions.
You would axe the second carbon tax as well, the industrial tax.
You would emulate both.
You would need both.
So there's no, not even a fight against climate change or no incentive exceptions.
That's not true.
Less gas.
There's a cost associated with using energy already, but my approach is a pragmatic one.
For example, the National Bank calculated that if we export our natural gas, our liquefied natural gas, to India, for example, to replace coal, that could reduce emissions in India by 2.5 billion tons.
That's three times the emissions of all of Canada and would also bring a lot of money back to Canada.
The Liberals are blocking the construction of the pipeline and of the LNG plants.
For example, LNG Quebec is a project that would make it possible for us to sell our energy very profitably to Europe and reduce Europe's dependence on Putin.
And that's what I would like to do instead of feeding into Putin's war machine.
Mr. Carney's abolition of the carbon tax means that Canadians outside of Quebec will receive a rebate for several weeks still for a tax that has been cut.
So this puts Quebec in an unjust position.
What are you asking in this respect?
Another element might give Mr. Carney an opportunity to answer.
Last year, Canada invested $30 billion in oil.
Transmountain cost $40 billion.
It took nine years to build it.
That means that with only just these elements, that's $16 billion of Quebec money that was invested in oil.
Do you want a great energy work site?
It's Quebec's green work site.
So let's invest there.
We've got to the $3.7 billion.
The government would preemptively reimburse the tax carbon.
Now they've cancelled the carbon tax before the elections, but they're still sending reimbursements for expenditures that people won't have to do because the carbon tax no longer exists.
Quebec is responsible and still has a carbon trade system like California.
We're being penalized.
We're taking $800 million out of Quebec's pocket, Quebec's pockets.
That's $100 per person, including newborn babies, $800 from everyone's pockets, $100 from everyone's pockets to offer electoral portals just before an election.
Is there not an injustice there?
It's not an injustice.
Quebec is a pioneer in carbon markets, and that's clear.
First point.
And the second point, Canadians outside of Quebec and British Columbia have paid the carbon tax, and as such, they receive the carbon rebate.
And all Canadians, including Quebecers, will receive the middle-class tax cut.
Because we have what we've done, what we've done, there's a principle here.
There's an important principle here.
Yes, you're going to speak in a moment.
Just in terms of clarity for those who are listening to us, what reimbursement are you talking about?
The rebate.
No, not in Quebec.
No, not in Quebec.
But there's a principle here.
We are making people whole, people who paid the carbon tax.
And we're doing that in a fair way.
Europe, Quebec and California has a system that incentivizes companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
It's about 9 cents per litre.
And it's much cheaper than the potential effects and the future effects of climate change.
Just to get back to the debate topic, we are talking about the climate crisis here.
That is not something that is a long way off.
This is something going on right now.
We are already in the midst of the climate crisis.
We have seen it here in Quebec.
Extreme temperatures, forest fires, flooding.
I agree with Mr. Blanchette that it is too high a cost to bear.
So we need to do something.
I spoke with one mother before I became a father, and she said, I'm worried about my children when they play outside.
I'm worried about the BC forest fires.
Our children cannot breathe the air outside.
And now that I am a father, I feel the same anxiety.
With forest fires, people cannot breathe the air.
So we need to do something.
We need to protect our environment and we need to protect our children.
Mr. Polyev, you're clear, you're saying that we need a pipeline.
If, in spite of your efforts with the Indigenous nations, they say no, would you impose it in spite of all of your efforts?
If Quebec says no, would you impose it?
Well, first of all, you shouldn't assume that because most Quebecers want a pipeline.
According to the polls, look, there's no social acceptability for the status quo.
Thank you very much.
That is the most empty sentence I've ever heard in this debate.
Can I answer the question?
It's just nonsense, absolute nonsense.
I'll say what it means.
I'll tell you.
Quebecers who buy oil from Alberta, it's got to go through the U.S. currently, which gives Donald Trump power over our own energy.
You say you're in favor of sovereignty.
I'm in favor of economic sovereignty and energy sovereignty, and that requires pipeline.
Yet another scarecrow.
The U.S. will never bomb their economy so much by sacrificing a hugely profitable product.
That's such an amazing argument.
How much will your pipeline cross cost?
Transmountain cost $40 billion, but now you want a 4,600-kilometer pipeline without investors, with Europe that doesn't even want to forestall.
Just to clarify, I would never subsidize pipelines.
That's unnecessary.
They're very profitable.
The only reason why it's expensive now is because there are rules and legislation that prevent the construction of pipelines because of bureaucracy.
We're going to get rid of red tape.
We're going to open this up to the US.
Cutting environmental regulations.
If Indigenous nations, in spite of all your nice efforts, I'm talking about Mr. Carney and you who want a pipeline, if they refuse, what do you do?
Refuse?
Are you saying across the board?
Yes, we've seen this.
He can't say that.
He doesn't get to impose his will.
Mr. Polyev, if there are Indigenous nations or provinces that are against it, what do you do?
Well, there are others who will be in favor.
For example, Mr. Kearney opposed a pipeline in the West, which would have enabled us to sell our oil to Asia, the Northern Gateway project.
80% of First Nations were in favor, 20% were against.
And in a case like that, I think the majority rules.
And I think we need to allow our companies to pay some of their taxes directly to First Nations to fight poverty through industry reduction.
That's our approach.
Would you be ready to impose one?
No, never impose.
Can I respond, please?
Never impose.
No.
But a couple of points.
First of all, our relationship with the United States has changed everything.
So imports from the United States and geography, as Mr. Polliev has said around pipelines, those are problems.
Those are national security problems for us, and we need to act.
That's the first point.
Second, on March 21st, there was a meeting of the Premiers.
All the Premiers were here in Ottawa.
And we sat down and we agreed.
All the Premiers signed an agreement to have an energy corridor that would cover oil, natural gas, clean energy, and critical minerals.
And with that, and with a process with Indigenous leaders, we can and we could have a solution to this problem.
And that's an example of leadership.
That's an example of bringing leaders together to meet a national goal.
We need to do more than that over this crisis.
I'll ask the question again.
If ever Indigenous nations against it, you forget the project?
Well, no.
You cannot force projects on people.
Listen, it's a question.
I have another question about the environment.
Here's the question.
You have said that you are a pragmatic person.
Do you agree that it is not pragmatic to continue to subsidize oil companies with billions of dollars?
That's not pragmatic at all.
Would you agree?
Well, I agree with that principle.
Okay, then will you commit to stopping these subsidies?
Absolutely.
It's clear.
This is why you need new Democrats.
Look at that.
We got a commitment from the Commission.
It's not a new commitment.
This is why you need new Democrats.
It's not a new commitment.
Let's be very clear.
Mid-February, British Columbia, you, like all other Canadian leaders, said something in English that was, if necessary, you would use the executive emergency powers.
You said it.
I heard it again yesterday.
You would force pipelines through Canada and throughout two days after that, with Mr. Roi, that's not it.
That's not it at all.
Please be nice, we're almost friends.
But then you said to Mr. Roi, I would never like to force this.
So it's not rules that stop this.
It's social acceptability that stop this pipeline because people said no.
Mr. Carney, please reply.
Okay, no.
It's the use of emergency powers for the federal government.
That's for federal approval.
But there also has to be approval, for example, here in Quebec.
There has to be approval from the provinces and the support of Indigenous people.
This is Canada.
That's how Canada works.
But another point, if I may, we're starting to see cooperation agreements come into place with the provinces to have one project, one evaluation, and that's going to accelerate the approval of major projects in Canada.
Mr. Blanchet, you said that I have a greater chance of signing the Canadian Constitution than approving a pipeline.
But how could you really paint yourself in such a corner and say never, ever?
If our relationship with the U.S. gets worse, And the pipeline goes to the United States.
If our ports become trickier in terms of imports, what would you do?
What would you tie your hands?
It's a very serious one.
But he won't self-destruct the American economy.
And Americans think that Canadian oil is in their backyard.
There's no rule that stops oil from being built or circulating.
But Quebec, Quebec didn't want it.
And Mr. Carney said, I will like to respect Quebec's environmental rules.
So there are certain elements that are incoherent from him.
I still know because Quebec is the best place in the world to develop a green super energy market that goes right to the south without asking Ottawa's permission.
Why would we invest in oil that doesn't have economic benefits for Quebec if it means that we still pay more at the pump?
Quick comments.
You are slightly behind in terms of the tramway and the third link.
We're talking about the environment and public transit as well.
So the third link, would you fund this or the tramway, one or the other or both?
Yes, for the Quebec City Tramway.
We support public transit.
We are against projects that are bad for the environment.
So you're against the third link.
Exactly.
We are against the third link.
We support the tramway.
One solution to address the climate crisis while at the same time helping our economy is to invest heavily in public transit.
This would help municipalities, this would help provinces.
We could work together with them and use transfers to provide more funding for these projects.
And they're the sort of projects we need.
They would create good jobs while at the same time helping Canada reduce emissions.
Do we have a tramway or a third link?
Both or just the third link?
Just the third link.
You have to make choices.
And I would speak to people in the regions today.
The other parties are against the third link.
And they want to ban gas-powered cars.
That's not practical in the regions of our country.
You need a truck, you need a car in order to live in regional areas.
So I'm going to reverse that.
You'll be able to keep your truck.
We will build highways and bridges so that you can live a good life in the region.
Mr. Blanche, both projects.
The Quebec government wants the tramway.
The city of Quebec City, rather, wants the tramway.
The federal government needs to give the money required to the provincial government for the tramway.
We don't know what a third link looks like.
We don't know where it's going to go, under, over.
We don't know what colour it's going to be.
You were supposed to give your opinion on that for the past three debates.
Please remind me of my past.
Mr. Carney.
Well, I can be quick.
Tramway, yes, because there is a project that's underway.
We support it.
And as Mr. Blanchet has said, there is no project right now for the third link.
But I think the third link will be a blue one.
It'll be blue.
Right.
I don't have a lot of time left, but I'll have one more question.
Do we have to speed up the development of nuclear power?
Yes.
Yes, absolutely.
And for a couple of reasons.
Across Quebec, in Ontario.
It's a choice that Quebec and the provinces will make.
But we have a major advantage here in Canada.
We have uranium.
We have big nuclear companies, including Westinghouse, CANDU, and others.
And we have technology in small modular reactors, so it's a great opportunity.
I understand there are wells in the countries in the world that need nuclear energy.
I don't think Canada needs nuclear energy.
Quebec doesn't want to.
I'm not going to interfere in Canadian energy.
Well, they could be reviewed.
No, no, Quebecers don't want nuclear energy.
I'm also the one that managed the closure of the Jean-Tyu plant.
But we're not going to reopen it.
As a national project, I am in favor of an East-West energy grid that would connect Quebec with Manitoba and BC to transport clean energy.
It could be not so much in favor of nuclear energy.
I support renewable hydro energy more.
In favor, that's one of the best sources of electricity.
It provides 60% of the electricity in Ontario.
Unfortunately, bureaucracy slows down construction without adding any safety.
So I would take the politicians off the Nuclear Safety Commission and allow scientists to do the work so that we can add that source of energy to the portfolio.
This is the first time I've heard Mr. Polyev say something pro-science.
Immigration.
theme, immigration and foreign affairs.
There are lots of issues with immigration that are linked to Donald Trump.
It's hard to immigrate these days.
I'd like to stay if I can find a good job.
We have to deal with people who are arriving in droves because people are arriving and they don't have work.
Should we let them in or not?
Why not?
Why not welcome them if we have the capacity?
Do you think we should let in anyone who wants to come?
In the United States, there's one rule.
In Canada, there's another.
I think everyone should follow the rule.
We know there are over 500,000 Haitians currently living in the United States who are now being threatened with deportation.
They might lose their temporary protection.
I'll show you the numbers here.
This is the number of people crossing the border in Saint-Bernard de l'École.
1,411 people in the first half of April.
That's more than in March, February, or January.
So you can see the numbers are growing.
Simple question.
You have 35 seconds each.
Would you accept these Haitians into Canada or not?
Mr. Carney.
Well, first of all, this is a question of humanity.
This is a human issue.
And these are some of the most vulnerable people in North America.
But there are limits.
We have to be human, but we have to be realistic.
Canada cannot accept everyone.
And we have an agreement with the Americans, the Safe Third Country Agreement.
And under that agreement, we will send back most asylum seekers.
So they would be mostly sent back to the U.S. Mr. Blanche.
The rules aren't tributary to the origin of the requester.
We can't say we'll welcome the Haitians, but tough luck to the Venezuelans.
The rules need to be the same for everyone.
I'm particularly sensitive to this because I often meet with Haitian representatives.
They are francophones, and so it's easier for them to integrate into Quebec.
If Quebec is able financially to welcome them, then I'm sympathetic.
But the rules have to be applied, and Quebec's welcoming capacity is at its very limit.
The formal rule now would be to send them back because they are in a safe third country, i.e. the U.S. Mr. Sengh.
In general, we should do our part.
It's a question of humanity and compassion.
We appreciate the fact that our country is founded on immigration.
That is something important to us.
We want immigration levels that are in line with our needs.
Yes, we need to take in people, but if we cannot accept people, well, we don't want them to have a bad life here in Canada and Quebec.
So we need immigration, but we cannot take everyone.
Yes or no?
specific question?
The question is, do we accept those people?
For the people crossing the border at La Cole, would they be welcome to Canada or not?
Because we have the right to send them back under the Safer Country Agreement.
Unfortunately, they have to be returned because immigration has to follow the normal entry points.
Quebecers are extremely generous and welcoming.
They welcomed my wife, as Mr. Blanché mentioned.
But the Liberal government has abused Quebecer's generosity with an out-of-control immigration system.
The population has grown three times faster than the number of new homes built.
This has created a housing crisis in Quebec.
They're at the breaking point.
And the government of Quebec has been given the power to choose immigrants.
That was under the Mulroney government that that power was delegated to Quebec.
So we need to have realistic numbers, realistic based on our housing capacity.
What Mr. Polyev is saying is that immigrants should be blamed for something that is really the fault of successive Conservative and Liberal governments who have not invested enough in our resources, who have not built enough housing, who have not welcomed people in the way that they should have been welcomed.
This cannot be blamed on immigrants.
That's not true.
Quebec is now asking, given the number of asylum seekers in its territory, for $500 million.
That was the amount they asked for in 2024.
Mr. Polyev, you'll be starting this open debate.
Would you be sending a $500 million check to Quebec?
We have to work with the government of Quebec to fix the damage the Liberals caused with an out-of-control immigration system.
And I also have to say that I reject the Century initiative, which is a Liberal policy to balloon Canada's population to 100 million people.
That's extreme.
I think we should go back to immigration levels that are such that the population never grows faster than the number of houses, jobs, or health care services available.
Would you give more money to Quebec?
And more generally, where would you like to have the immigration quota set?
We'll start with the second part.
We need to have a cap on all types of immigration for a certain amount of time so that we can increase our capacity to welcome newcomers to Canada, including in housing, in training and language training here in Quebec, and make sure that the social safety net can accept them.
And in those circumstances, the targets announced by your predecessor, Mr. Trudeau, you would bring them down further, is that correct?
Well, Are some challenges here in Quebec, for example?
Challenges with temporary foreign workers, for example.
And it's a question of distribution, if I can say it that way.
The distribution of workers across Quebec.
And there's a shortage of workers, but we will maintain the cap on immigration for certainly a couple of years so that we can increase our ability to welcome Mr. Samuels.
Would you reduce the number of immigrants to Canada in general?
Instead of answering with a simple yes or no, I would want to base our response on the fact it is obvious that we need immigration.
When I speak to Quebec farmers, they tell me yes, we need immigrants to work on our farms.
When I talk to small and medium businesses, they tell me that we need immigrants.
The question is, what level of immigration?
We would base our immigration levels on the findings of an expert panel which would study our capacities.
Then we would have a data-based number.
But I do not want to fall into the trap of fear-mongering or blaming immigrants for things.
We need a facts-based, needs-based approach.
Temporary foreign workers are a different category.
Foreign students are a separate category, and they are essential for our post-secondary establishments in Quebec and in Canada.
Unfortunately, it's being used as a roundabout way to get asylum or asylum is also taken advantage of through smuggling and organized crime.
We don't want to import vulnerable workers because we simply need people.
Asylum seekers should be people who are in distress that we need to welcome based on our welcoming capacity.
We are not currently in Quebec that are arriving.
Quebec needs to be able to establish what its targets are.
And one clear element: the federal parliament with a block Québécois initiative decided to force the federal government to consult provinces within 100 days to determine how many immigrants would be welcomed.
No one can decide, apart from Quebec, how much Quebec can accept and welcome.
Another rare moment where I agree with Mr. Blanchette, temporary foreign workers are often victims of power abuses.
We would restrict the use of workers who are exploited by major corporations.
The Centre Initiative was 100 million immigrants in Canada before the end of the century.
Dominic Barton, a parliamentary committee, said that they did not take into account the uniqueness of Quebec, and one of the two co-authors of the Centre Initiative, and 100 million people, is now one of Mr. Carney's close advisors.
Mr. Carney, on a different subject now, would you say that the immigration system in Canada is going off the rails or has gone off the rails in the last seven or eight years?
Yes, the system isn't working.
And especially after the pandemic, our population has gone up, I think, at about 3% per year because of immigration.
And that's why we need to have a cap for a certain period of time.
And I can say, I'd like to say that Canadians, Quebecers and all Canadians, they want to welcome immigrants.
There's no problem with Canadians' attitudes here at all.
It's the responsibility of all of us to increase our capacity to welcome newcomers.
Is it normal?
Now, in France, it takes six months.
In Germany, eight months.
So, why do asylum seekers coming to Canada take at least three years to be processed?
Because Canada is obstinate in welcoming more people than they can process, house, and they're not taking into account the proportionality of every province and territory.
I spoke with federal public servants, and they told me that there is a lack of resources.
There aren't enough workers to manage all the files that are coming in.
It's unthinkable that people have to wait three years for an answer.
But is that not the big problem?
It's a problem.
So, we need to have more people working on this people who can make decisions or, at the very least, provide an answer, because it is entirely unacceptable that we have people waiting so long.
Mr. Pohiev, is this problem solvable?
Yes.
Look, it's all about efficiency by screening out bogus asylum seekers.
That's what's slowing things down.
We could reduce processing times by getting rid of the bogus claimants.
And when people are forum shopping, when they've been to other places, that also slows things down and discourages genuine claimants.
My point of view is that if someone's in danger in their country of origin, they should be able to decide to come to Canada.
But if they're not refugees, for example, we've seen a situation in Mexico where people came here without ever needing to be refugees.
They never needed asylum, and that causes a bottleneck in the system.
And so, what we're going to do is ensure that genuine refugees can come here and have their lives saved through the generosity of Canadians.
But how do you separate the real ones from the non-real ones?
Well, that's the problem.
The machine, the apparatus is too cumbersome.
And Mexico was one of the causes in the problem.
So, by eliminating that source, three years ago, is that unacceptable wait time in Canada?
No, it's not acceptable.
It's inhumane.
It's inhumane for asylum seekers.
And that's an indication that there is a problem with productivity in that department.
That takes resources, but it's also a question of productivity.
Why not hitting the brake pedal with kindness, of course?
Why not slow things down until we have a good system and a good public service for immigration that can deal with files in a few months?
The rhythm is far too quick, and so we can't succeed at this rate.
People for economic reasons or who are in distress for other reasons come to Canada and they're lost because their files aren't being processed.
You can conclude, Mr. Carney.
I more or less agree with that.
But we need to be, as you've said, we need to be neutral.
We need to act in a neutral and fair way.
All right.
A fair way.
I want to save some time to talk about two other important files, international aid, Ukraine and Gaza.
We think we've understood your position on immigration.
The question is simple.
Should we cut international aid or not?
I'll give you some figures here.
$2.1 billion is being given to Ukraine currently.
That's a large amount of money for Canada.
Ethiopia also.
Haiti.
There's a long list of other countries that we could have put up on the board.
Mr. Polyev, you've said that we need to cut international aid.
What would you cut?
Ukraine, Ethiopia, Haiti?
No.
I will start by cutting off China.
The Liberal government gave $250 million to the Chinese Infrastructure Bank in order to build pipelines, highways, and other infrastructure to promote the expansion of Beijing's empire.
I don't think that's a good use of taxpayer money.
Also, we saw UNRWA, the organization in the Gaza Strip that took part or whose employees took part in the attacks of September 7th.
So I don't think we should be funding that type of activity either.
The aid we give should be directly to people in need and not through bureaucracies, multinational bureaucracies and terrorists.
Let's talk about Gaza.
Currently, Doctors Without Borders just today said that the situation was worse than ever.
So if you cut UNRWA, which might be an imperfect organization, but if you cut aid to them, how can Canada help Palestinians with not-for-profit groups, NGOs that will deliver the services directly to Gazans?
Because it's a waste of money when that money that's not even getting to the people.
I will start by saying if there's anyone in an organization with a problem, then yes, that should be investigated.
But what you said about UNRWA was disgusting.
This is the only organization that is helping out people on the ground.
And you painted the entire organization with the same brush, calling it a terrorist organization.
That is unacceptable.
That is hateful, and it is entirely inappropriate.
On the subject of Palestinians and international aid, would you continue to fund UNRWA?
Yes.
We are in a situation where we need to have an immediate ceasefire.
We need to have all the hostages returned and we need to resume humanitarian aid to Gaza.
And at this time, we have $100 million from the Government of Canada that is ready to be provided in humanitarian aid to Gaza with organizations that are working there.
And that's key.
And I agree with Mr. Singh.
There are only a couple of groups that are working in Gaza right now.
Mr. Planchet, it's a very unique situation in Canada and in Quebec.
The Jewish community is victims of radical Islamists.
Palestinians are currently victims of terrible violence from the Israeli regime.
We have to help people in distress there and elsewhere.
It's the best way to have international aid.
That is not military.
We need to allow people to live happily where they live.
And Palestine will not become mar-a-lago for Americans that just want to chill on the coast.
We have to see where the money goes.
We have to see how much money is taken by Hamas.
It's maybe less now, but it was huge in the past.
A lot of money was taken from the Palestinians.
We have to help Palestinians at the end of the day.
International aid.
So the three of you on this side would continue.
Mr. Polyev, do you have an amount in your mind of how much you would cut in international aid?
We're going to target waste in all programs.
We will audit to identify examples like UNRWA when they used funds for Hamas.
We're also going to find other examples of international waste because the decision is to protect Canadian taxpayers.
We all agree that there's a lot of suffering here in Canada, and Canadians can't afford to pay their bills.
So we need to find some savings in order to reduce the cost of living here in Canada.
I would like to come back to you.
And we need to look at all departments in order to find those savings and protect affordability in Canada.
I'm sorry, everyone's had their piece to say.
The situation is heartbreaking.
It's heartbreaking to see innocent people being killed.
Mr. Carney, why don't you call things as they are?
This is a genocide.
People in Israel do deserve peace and security, but people in Palestine do as well.
What is going on right now is a genocide against people in Palestine.
Why won't you admit it?
The situation in Gaza in the Middle East is horrible.
It's a genocide.
But I never use that word in a political way to politicize the situation.
But it's a matter of facts.
That was Mr. Carney's response.
I think we've understood your question, Mr. Seng.
Now, moving on to the next theme, identity and sovereignty.
It would be good to put flags out on our balconies to show our Canadian pride.
I was surprised to see how proud people were.
We're Canadian.
We will not be Americans.
I think we're going to be more united.
I think I haven't seen this in a long time.
So, yes, we've all seen this across Canada.
All commentators have seen this.
There is a wave of patriotism in Canada, but we've also seen deep divisions in the West.
Alberta says it may separate and we've given six months to the next Prime Minister to meet its requests.
Otherwise, there could be a national unity that is unprecedented.
In Quebec, the Parti Québécois is nearing power and is promising a referendum during your term, possibly.
At the end of the day, are we not as divided as the U.S. or very divided?
We'll go around the table, Mr. Poidiev, first.
Unfortunately, yes, there are divisions all across Canada, all kinds of divisions.
And I think that we've had a federal government that has divided everyone, pitting regions against one another and various groups against one another, social classes pitted against one another.
We need to unite Canadians.
We need to unite around our common identity that includes the French language, our English language, our military, the promise of Canada that anyone who works hard can have a great life in a beautiful house on a safe street.
Thank you.
Mr. Singh, is there not division in Canada?
When I travel throughout the country, I observe great unity, great solidarity.
Canadians want to defend our country.
They do not want to become the 51st state.
They want to protect what is dear to our hearts.
When I talk to people about identity, people tell me our identity is taking care of one another.
We have programs for that.
For example, our health care system.
We need to protect these systems and strengthen them, not cut them or sacrifice them.
Now is a time to bring people together to get things done with our solidarity.
Thank you.
Mr. Blanchet, I think that people confuse certain things.
Some people think that all Canadians should follow one single line behind the federal government, and so we only have one economy.
Mr. Trump's fear, or rather the threat of Mr. Trump, has to be taken seriously.
But instrumentalizing it for nation-building in Canada, where Quebecers are being asked to be attached to their language as a frivolity, I can't agree with that.
Thank you.
Quebec's uniqueness is also economic, and we have to be on the same level as a business.
Is there a division in Canada?
Well, there's always a risk, but I think that right now, Canadians are uniting, and they want to unite.
Canadians want a positive agenda.
There is solidarity here.
Healthcare is a right here in Canada.
It's not a big business like in the United States.
We put a value on diversity here.
And we also put importance on judicial independence.
And the potential of Canada is enormous because we're all in this together.
Thank you.
So open debate.
Mr. Blanchet, how can we think that Quebec, if it's on its own and independent, could be stronger to stand up to Trump in comparison with all of Canada right now?
Does Canada need to be a province of Mexico to be allied to Mexico against the states?
We're not in that debate this week, but Quebec does not need to be a Canadian province to talk of its own voice.
Our economy is doing fairly well, but our economy is different to that of Canada's.
And the announcements that have been made have helped Ontario Steel, Ontario Banking, the Ontario automotive industry to fund Western oil.
Those are the investments made.
The counter-tariffs on aluminium are very harmful because people have to pay for the aluminium they sent to be processed in the States.
They're then re-imported into Canada.
$2 billion to the States in countervailing tariffs.
For that, nothing happened.
But now, $2 billion has simply been signed by Mr. Carney for the automotive industry.
He sees himself as a negotiator, but he hasn't even been re-elected yet.
Should Quebecers not Make sure that they have a strong voice that collaborates.
I've already said that we would work with Canada, but I've asked to speak to Mr. Carney, but he's never called me.
He's never wanted to talk to me.
I want Quebec to be at the negotiating table for a stronger negotiating position with Canada.
Is there also not a risk, like was the case with the automotive industry in Ontario to this because this could happen to the detriment of saving other industries in our country.
If we put all our eggs in automotive, not at all.
For example, our counter-tariffs for the aluminum sector and steel.
No, no, they're not bad.
They're not bad at all.
We import aluminium cans from the states that comes from our aluminium at all.
If I may, the counter-tariffs for the aluminum sector are $30 billion.
The counter-tariffs, or $30 billion rather, the counter-tariffs for the automotive sector, that's $8 billion.
That's a huge difference because there are a number of reasons for this.
But our counter-tariffs, it's not just for Quebec, it's for the workers there, are much higher.
I don't know where that money came from.
I don't know when the industry will get $2 billion for automotive immediately for them because we're shaking in our boots when the automotive industry is at risk.
But aluminium was not supported.
There's no processing capacity.
There's no help for temporary work losses.
$2 billion for the automotive industry, but nothing for aluminium.
When it's Ontario, the checks come flying, but it has to be the same for other places.
Right, especially Quebec.
Your numbers are wrong.
Mr. Polyev, but he's got a point when he says that the weakness in our country right now threatens our unity.
Your Liberal government for 10 years has the worst track record on immigration, on housing, on inflation, on crime, but doesn't it embarrass you to ask Canadians for a fourth term of office after the worst Liberal record?
I've just become leader.
And same members of the parliament, same old promises.
And I've been Prime Minister for one month.
And in that month, we have an agreement with the provinces, we have an agreement with Australia, we have an agreement with France, we have an agreement with the United Kingdom.
We have set up negotiations for the next Prime Minister, and that's a decision that people at home are going to make.
And we've done all of that in this short time.
And we've also cut the tax.
We've put in place programs for workers who are most affected by this tariff war.
And all that in one month.
Quebec sent a letter with five requests.
No one responded to it.
We made requests.
We keep hearing, oh, we've spoken to provinces, things are great with Quebec.
But we didn't get any response to our letter.
Is it because of the final straight of the election campaign?
What's going on?
Mr. Carney, you described health care as a right, and I agree with that.
But you are talking about massive threats to health care.
Not at all.
Mr. Singh, I let you speak earlier.
Mr. Singh, one, two, three, Mr. Singh, cut his mic.
I'll let you speak more earlier, but now we're nearing the end.
We're talking about Quebec and French.
Does Quebec have the right to defend French, even at the cost of using the notwithstanding clause upstream?
Mr. Polyeff, yes, Quebec must defend French.
It's the common language of Quebec, and I will defend French.
My father was a francophone from Saskatchewan.
I lost my French a little bit when I was a teenager, but I married a Quebecer.
Our children speak French, and I understand why French needs to be protected.
And that is why I will continue to support laws and policies that allow Quebec and the federal government to protect French all across Canada.
You're against that, Mr. Carney?
Well, there is a general question here around the use of the notwithstanding clause in a preventative way.
And it's not necessarily a question just for Quebec.
It's been used in Quebec, but it could also apply in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.
And it has.
And so the question is, do we have rights and freedoms here in Canada?
Are we equal?
And we need to consider the right balance.
Certainly.
But the use of the notwithstanding clause in a preventative way, that's a question for the Supreme Court.
Mr. Blanchet, in terms of the use of the notwithstanding clause, obviously you have no problem with that.
Jean-Cretien, on behalf of Pierre Trudeau, negotiated with the provinces and it led to the notwithstanding clause.
And this wasn't signed by Quebec.
It was tested.
It's not the type of use that is in question.
It's how it is used.
The Supreme Court has already decided.
Mr. Carney wants to turn to the Supreme Court to disagree with itself in the decision it made of Quebec.
There are interveners from Quebec who have challenged this to the Supreme Court.
You are going to take Quebec taxpayer money to contest a Quebec bill that is under Quebec jurisdiction.
That was adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec.
Mr. Singh, on this notwithstanding clause for French, I believe in protecting the French language.
During this debate, I have tried to bring up health a few times.
Mr. Roi cut me off a number of times.
Look at my time on the clock.
Every time I tried to bring up health care, I was responding directly to something that Mr. Carney said, because health is something that is important for me.
It is about identity.
It's something I am very passionate about.
And every time I tried to bring it up, Mr. Roi called me out and cut me off.
That is not fair.
For me, the question of health care is crucial.
When I talk to people on the street and ask them what is important to them, they say universal public health care.
People ought to know that the other leaders on this stage tonight would cut health care funding.
And I think that's wrong.
No, no.
No.
Not now, Mr. Blanchet.
No, neither Mr. Blanche nor I have said this.
And I need to tell people, because it's important, this is what I believe in.
This is what I believe in and what the NEP believes in.
That's not right to make allegations like that.
We talked about health earlier.
I let you speak.
But now we're moving on to another topic.
Yes, but now we need to bring it up in the context of identity.
What is Canadian identity?
Healthcare.
We have to bring it up in this part of the debate.
Canadian identity is about taking care of one another.
We need our universal public health care system.
It should be strengthened.
It should be protected.
We are in the midst of a health care crisis.
It's supposed to be an open debate, so we should be able to talk about whatever topic comes up.
There's a lot of risk when it comes to the health of a language.
Let's talk about language.
There's healthcare issues in Quebec as well, and I am here to protect the health care system for everyone, including Quebecers.
Outside of Quebec, Mr. Singh and others, the weighting of francophones has gone from 6% and 71 to 3.5% in 2021.
How will you reverse this trend?
People are listening to you across Canada.
Well, first of all, we are going to increase the level of francophone immigrants outside of Quebec.
We'll increase that from 10 to 12 percent.
Second, we will strengthen Radio-Canada and CBC with new governance structure and new money.
Mr. Polyev wants to cut that.
We are going to strengthen the telephilm industry and the Canadian Council for the Arts so that we can increase training.
First of all, the Conservative Party supported the federal legislation to ensure that federally regulated workplaces in Quebec follow Bill 101.
We also will increase funding to allow young people to take part in French immersion for Anglophones coming from outside Quebec, and that will enrich the French language.
And third, we'll make sure Quebec has more control over immigrant selection so that they can better choose those who can be francised and integrated into the labor market and Quebec culture.
That's what we want to do to protect the French language.
Mr. Polyev, of course, your position on Radio-Canada and the CBC has created a lot of concerns.
You've continued to say that you would protect Radio-Canada because it provides a service to Francophone minorities across the country, but you would abolish the CBC.
How is such a thing possible?
Well, it is possible.
We have news networks.
But they share the same buildings.
You understand how difficult it is.
I do understand the situation.
I will protect Radio-Canada's services because there's already other French language news services.
TVA is an example.
So it is possible to have news service that's focused on French news services.
And the CBC can just operate with its own revenues as an NGO as a non-governmental organization.
The principle is that the government should simply do what the market cannot do.
And the market would never be able to provide exclusive French services to francophones all across Canada.
So there is a role for the government to play in defending French news services.
When I was a young person in Calgary, that was the only way for me to get news in French.
So I would protect those services because there's a good reason to do that.
Let me translate that.
Mr. Polyev wants to get rid of Radio-Canada and And then he would write a check to other companies so that they can provide French language services.
That's the wrong thing to do.
We would protect Radio Canada and CBC, especially in the context of a misinformation which is undermining our democracy.
I am not a francophone, but I am a francophile.
I love the French language.
I have fallen in love with it.
It enriches our country.
Having Quebec benefits all of Canada.
The forward-thinking ideas that have come out of Quebec, we need Quebec.
We need the French language and we will protect them.
For the first time since 2011, there are no women here as leaders.
I met with a young woman.
This is a very short clip.
I met with her earlier this week.
Do you have a question for the leaders?
Something you're concerned about.
In Canada, the status of women, the status of women, you're worried about things moving backward?
Yes, that there could be a rollback of women's rights by some parties.
That concerns me.
My question.
Would you commit to making sure that there are no women's rights that are rolled back?
And, for example, would you push for having free contra exception, as is already the case in some provinces?
Is that something that you would commit to, starting with Mr. Polyev?
We will not eliminate that.
We will protect women's rights.
I have a message for Canadian women who are watching.
We will not pass legislation that would restrict the right to abortion.
That's been our policy for 20 years, and it won't change.
That's a guarantee that I make to you.
We will, in fact, broaden women's rights by dealing with crime against women.
Women are often victims of assaulters who are released because of liberal legislation.
They're released repeatedly, and that allows serious criminals to repeat offend against women.
And we are going to lock those people up.
We're going to lock those men up to protect women against violence.
Of course, our party believes in women's rights.
We would never allow for any backsliding on that front.
You brought up PharmaCare.
Well, it was the NDP that forced the Liberal government to bring in PharmaCare.
It covers now diabetes medication, but also contraceptives, and we believe that is crucial.
Rights are important, but being able to access the right is also important.
We are also the only party running a candidate slate that is half women.
The other parties have seen backsliding on their candidate slates in terms of diverse people and women.
But for us, it's an important issue.
Our candidate slate must represent the Canadian public, and that means it should be half women.
For us, we will always defend women's rights and also access those rights.
There is no member of the Bléquébécois that will be able to table a bill or motions that are against abortion.
Preventive maids will also not be allowed.
With American influence, we are in a very difficult place for women.
There are many ways that invite women to participate in politics.
We have reached parity with the Bléquébécois.
We wanted it to be 50-50, but in our current political culture, I have many great women in my party.
It's much more difficult at the federal level than in Quebec.
Yes, I think that this an aspect of politics right now, the negative politics that we're seeing, it's becoming more and more difficult to recruit women as candidates.
And really any candidate.
But absolutely, we defend the rights of women all the time.
But what I'm concerned about is the use of the notwithstanding clause.
Not in a preventative way, but after Supreme Court judgments have been made.
What does that do?
It takes away Canadians' rights and freedoms and it creates, and Mr. Polyev has proposed this for, you know, for, I know the situation, but this is a very dangerous development because if we start with that, abortion could be the right to abortion could eventually be nailed.
Mr. Soliev, you can answer.
Mr. Kearney, I said in a case where a man kills six people in a premeditated way and the court released that person, that means he served four years for each life he took.
The criminal in that case will be free in 50 years.
You're talking about danger.
That's what's dangerous.
Liberal laws, liberal laws that allow criminals to circulate on our streets.
I will never excuse for locking murderers up.
No.
I'm sorry, but you're trying to change the Canadian Constitution.
All right, gentlemen.
That's what you've proposed.
I would use Section 33 to put an end to the crime that liberals are starting with their policies.
Where will you stop?
By stopping murderers, yes.
Everyone knows that there should be severe penalties for murdered.
You're trying to sow division here.
Everyone agrees on that front.
If someone kills someone, there needs to be a strong punishment.
You're not special for opposing that.
No, the other three.
Everyone agrees.
All right, Mr. Blanche?
Very quickly, please.
Mr. Carney said that I voted for the new Official Languages Act bill.
The money comes from the previous bill, and the official language minority community money comes from the bill.
I was asked to bring changes.
We brought the changes we voted for, but we didn't want it to apply to Quebec because it harms Quebec.
Gentlemen, things didn't turn out perfectly, but Mr. Singh, you say you got 22 minutes compared to 24, 24, 25.
Roughly equitable.
I'm sorry that I did have to cut off your mic, but I'd like to wish all four of you good luck with the rest of the campaign.
And I hope that we'll see your costed plans as soon as possible so that we can see how much all of your promises will cost.
And I hope that everyone listening tonight will be able to make an informed decision now.
Voting starts this weekend.
And the game.
And the match?
I don't know.
There's still a couple periods left.
All right.
Thank you so much for being with us tonight, ladies and gentlemen.
That concludes this debate.
See you next time.
Good night.
This week, watch a primetime encore presentation of our 10-part series, First 100 Days.
We explore the early months of U.S. presidencies from George Washington in 1789 to Donald Trump in 2017.
We'll learn about the decisions made and how they shaped the White House, the nation, and history.
Thursday, the first 100 days of Lyndon Johnson's presidency.
He became president on November 22nd, 1963, after the assassination of President John Kennedy.
All I have, I would have given gladly not to be standing here today.
The greatest leader of our time has been struck down by the foulest deed of our time.
President Lyndon Johnson kept Kennedy's cabinet in place and proceeded to push for legislation on taxes and on civil rights.
Early in his term, he also declared war on poverty in America.
Watch First 100 Days Thursday at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2 or online at c-span.org.
Looking to contact your members of Congress?
Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
Contact information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
The congressional directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to pre-order your copy today.
C-SPANSHOP.org is C-SPAN's online store.
▲
Export Selection