CSPAN - Canadian Prime Minister Debate

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 17, 2025 18:59-21:04 - CSPAN

02:04:47

Canadian Prime Minister Debate

Participants

Main

mark carney

can 30:24

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		By about three or four percentage points, and if that is the result on election day, the Liberals then win a comfortable majority, an absolute majority.
		They won't have to deal with a minority government.
		That's right.
		When the election started, the liberals only had a minority government, and in the Canadian system that means you have to kind of strike all sorts of deals with various opposition parties and it just makes the administration much less stable, whereas if you get a majority in the Canadian system you can do an awful lot.
		The liberals have been in power for almost a decade, but now this issue of tariffs comes along, does that change the dynamic?
		Would would it?
		Is it easier, tougher to to win the next election?
		It makes it much easier.
		I mean, the liberals have been in power almost 10 years which, in the Canadian system, is a, is about the lifespan of a government.
		Very few governments in Canada last more than 10 years because people just get fed up.
		So before Uh, Donald Trump came to power and began making threats against Canada um, the liberals were in real trouble.
		The polls showed they were 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives and yet in a matter of just a few weeks, the Liberals have rebounded and are now leading the conservatives and and this is something that, at the start of the year, no one could possibly have predicted, because at that point the liberals were heading for a really major shellacking Well, in just a moment, we'll take you live to Montreal, where the candidates to be Canada's next prime minister are set to participate in their second debate this week.
		Yesterday, we brought you our French language debate and today's will be in English, hosted by the Leaders Debate Commission.
		This is live coverage on C-span from the Atrium of Maison Radio Canada in Montreal.
		Four federal leaders will debate for your vote.
		The leaders are here and ready to go, Mark Carney, Pierre Polyev, Yves Francois Blancher and Jugmeet Singh.
		They will debate the major challenges facing our country, from tariffs to the cost of living, public safety, energy and leading in a crisis.
		Good evening everybody.
		I'm Steve Pagin, your moderator for tonight's debate.
		Each leader has agreed to the following, no notes, answer the questions.
		Stay on theme.
		Stay on time.
		How much each leader speaks will be counted on these clocks visible to the leaders and to you at home.
		This is the 2025 Federal Leaders Debate.
		Well, welcome, leaders.
		Good to be with you here tonight in Montreal for what I'm sure will be a memorable evening.
		Our first theme is tariffs and threats to Canada, and we will begin with a round of questions.
		You will each have a minute to answer and then we'll go to open debate and the first question goes to mr Carney.
		Okay, what is the starting point for negotiations, mr Carney, with the United States if, as you have stated, our relationship with the?
		U.s is over as we know it?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Uh well, first Steve, may I thank you and also thank fellow leaders for their service to Canada.
		Uh, people at home for taking the time to watch.
		Um, I just want to underscore the premise, premise to your question, because I think the relationship that we've had with the United States, relationship over the course of almost the last four decades, which has been one of steady and increasing integration, has fundamentally changed because the President is looking to fundamentally restructure the trading system.
		So the starting point has to be one of strength.
		It has to show that we have control of our own economic destiny, has to have a clear plan here at home to build this economy, to diversify our trading partners with like-minded countries, and also has to have a position of strength in terms of our reaction to the U.S. unjustified tariffs.
		And that's why we have put in place counter-tariffs that have maximum impact in the United States and minimum impact here at home.
unidentified		Mr. Polyev, would you do anything differently?
		Well, first of all, thank you, Steve, and thank you to our fellow contestants here today.
		It's an honor to be here.
		What would I do different?
		Well, I'll start by what I would do the same.
		I think we do need to counter the American tariffs with our own to deter this economic aggression.
		We must make clear that we will always be sovereign and independent.
		What would I be doing differently?
		Well, we need to be in a position of strength.
		The Liberal government has weakened our economy with anti-energy laws, red tape, and high taxes that have driven $500 billion out of our country into the United States and made us incapable of shipping our resources overseas.
		That weakness threatens our ability to stand up for ourselves.
		So what would I do?
		I would cut taxes, red tape, and approve our resource projects so that we can get our goods to market and bring home the jobs so we stand up to President Trump from a position of strength.
		Mr. Singh, you get the next question.
		Can we trust the United States to work with us on matters such as Arctic sovereignty and defense policy?
		I think we've seen, first of all, good evening, everyone, and thank you for tuning in and thanks for the question, Steve.
		We've seen what for a lot of people feels like a betrayal when we look at the United States.
		I grew up in a border town.
		I grew up in Windsor, and we saw how connected we were as a city and as a community.
		People lived on one side of the border, worked on the other.
		People traveled back and forth all the time.
		We're in the automotive capital of Canada, and we knew how important it was to be able to build cars in Canada, but we saw that those cars went back and forth across the border.
		Seeing what Donald Trump did to attack Canada in this unprovoked way without any justification really felt like a betrayal.
		And so Canadians now are right to say, well, we don't really trust Donald Trump at this point, and we can't really have a lot of faith in him.
		So when it comes to our Arctic sovereignty and our security, we need to make decisions that are in our best interest and no longer be so dependent and so reliant on the U.S.
		And that's what I would advocate for, making sure we are resilient, independent, and less dependent on the United States.
		Mr. Blanché, for you, what supports would you want to see for industries affected by tariffs, many, of course, of which are in Quebec?
		Many of them.
		First, we all will come in Quebec and Montreal.
		You have me, because I try not to speak English in Montreal.
		However, I think we should never underestimate the threat that Mr. Trump poses on Quebec economy and Canada economy and Mexico economy.
		But we must acknowledge the fact that the economy of Quebec is built differently.
		The challenges are not the same.
		The necessity for Quebec to have at least partly its own voice in the negotiation is important.
		The difference between Quebec and Canada is very important in terms of economy, but also in terms of identity and language and values and who we are and the way we want to handle immigration.
		So we have the right to be different.
		And if this difference is being respected by whoever becomes Prime Minister of Canada, we will be reliable partners in order to achieve the best possible negotiation and protect ourselves and our economies as partners.
		Merci, Monsieur Brancher.
		Okay, we now move into open debate.
		And I'll start it off, Mr. Kearney, with you, and then we go from there.
		Do you still support dollar-for-dollar tariffs, even if they ultimately threaten Canadian jobs and businesses?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		No, and in fact, we've already moved off from dollar-for-dollar tariffs.
		You know, we have to recognize, and I think we all do, the United States economy is more than 10 times the size of the Canadian economy.
		And the principle in terms of our counter-tariffs is to have maximum impact in the United States, as I said a moment ago, minimum impact here.
		So we have to think about the impact on Canadian businesses.
		I'll give you one example, if I may.
		In the auto sector, the way we've designed those auto tariffs is that Canadian automakers, if they maintain production here, if they maintain their investments here, when I say Canadian automakers, I mean automakers that have jobs and plants in production in Canada, then they can have lower tariffs on what they ship to the United States.
		We create a huge incentive for them in order to do that.
		We also have carved out the Canadian auto parts sector.
		Last point, I know you're pressed for time.
		The Canadian auto parts sector so that it can remain competitive with the United States.
		We're focused on maximizing Canadian jobs, maximizing the harm in the U.S., so that we get them where we need them.
unidentified		Mr. Pollier, if you went in, then Mr. Singer.
		Mr. Kearney, you claim that you want our country to respond with strength, but after the last decade, half of which time you've been Justin Trudeau's economic advisor, our economy is weaker than ever before.
		It's been the worst growth in the G7.
		We've lost $1.5 trillion of investment south of the border.
		You supported blocking pipelines in Canada that gave Donald Trump and the U.S. a near monopoly over our energy.
		And now you want to keep in place Bill C69, the liberal no-new development law that blocks us from shipping our resources overseas.
		How could you possibly think it's a good idea to give the Americans a continued monopoly on our energy projects when you have seen how much these Liberal policies have weakened our country over the last decade?
		Let Mr. Kearney respond and then Mr. Senka.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		If I may.
		So let's go to my record.
		My record is a month long as Prime Minister.
		And this goes to the heart of coming to the Americans with strength, but doing the right thing for Canada.
		Within the first week as Prime Minister, I sat down with all the premiers of the provinces and territories, as well as the leaders of the Indigenous peoples, got an agreement with all the provinces and territories, doesn't happen very often, got an agreement for them, to have one Canadian economy instead of 13.
		First point.
		Secondly, to commit the federal government to do its part by Canada Day.
		So free trade in Canada by Canada Day.
		Thirdly, the federal government to commit with respect to project reviews.
		I'm getting to it.
		Thirdly, one project, one review, and relying on provincial.
		Yes, it is possible on our system.
		It is the impact assessment.
		It is agreed on under the impact assessment framework.
		And we have a cooperation agreement with British Columbia already.
		We're looking forward to them with the other provinces.
unidentified		We will move forward.
		Of course, we agree around having a strategic response to the United States.
		But what I'm concerned about is what we're doing here in Canada.
		We are already seeing threats to our country in that just the threats alone of the tariffs have meant Canadians have lost their jobs.
		The threats of the tariffs that are in pace right now, the impact of those tariffs, is that we've lost jobs in steel, aluminum, and the auto sector.
		People are already losing their jobs.
		And while Mr. Carney, you had time, as you mentioned, not very long time, but as Prime Minister, you showed us your priorities.
		The first thing you did is you had traveled, you made a tax cut for millionaires, which was reversing on the capital gains.
		So you gave a tax cut to millionaires, but you didn't have time to increase the amount that workers get on EI.
		Right now, workers who are struggling and wondering, what am I going to do if I lose my job?
		Workers who've lost their job are saying, how do I pay my bills when EI only covers half of a worker's salary?
		Maybe 40 years ago that would have worked.
		But right now, most workers are spending their entire salary just to pay the bills, to pay their mortgage and their rents, and to put food on the table.
		So EI is not good enough.
		And it shows Canadians that you didn't make it a priority to protect those that are impacted by these tariffs that are threatened because their jobs are lost.
		We have not heard from Mr. Blanchet yet in this segment, so please.
		Yeah, Mr. Carney, you are becoming a real Canadian leader saying one thing in French and another one in English.
		You said in British Columbia in February that you would force oil and gas through pipelines through Quebec, either we wanted it or not.
		You would use emergency powers in order to do so.
		And two days later in Montreal, you said that you would never do that without the approval of Quebec.
		What's the point of using emergency powers if you do have the agreement of Quebec?
		However, I do agree with you.
		It's important to be very strong in front of Mr. Trump.
		However, I would keep the dollar-for-dollar policy.
		Don't be weak in front of Mr. Trump.
		And those counter-terrorists have to be targeted.
		You have put out already two billions of dollars for Ontario auto industry, car industry, and the lumberwood industry in Quebec has already paid to the United States two billions of dollars, and you have not raised one finger in order to help us.
		Let's get from Mr. Polyev and then a response from Mr. Kearney.
		Well, Mr. Kearney refused to answer the question about pipelines.
		Just the other day, he said that he doesn't necessarily think we need to build pipelines.
		Let me tell you what that means.
		Right now, the Americans get 97% of our oil, 100% of our natural gas exports, at big discounts.
		We have to send Canadian oil from Western Canada through the States just to get it back to Quebec because we don't have a pipeline.
		And now there's this law, Liberal law C69, which effectively bans pipelines.
		The 14 biggest energy and resource companies say it has to go if we're ever going to build another project.
		And I asked Mr. Kearney why he would keep in place this anti-pipeline law that effectively empowers Donald Trump to have a total monopoly on our single biggest export.
		Why would you not repeal this Liberal law?
		Isn't it because you are exactly in the same line as Justin Trudeau and the rest of the Liberal team that is now making up your cabinet?
		Let's get a response.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me pick up a couple of points that have been made.
		The first thing I did as Prime Minister was to cut the carbon tax.
		That's the first thing.
		Second thing is made a commitment.
		Made a commitment that all proceeds, all proceeds from our tariffs will go to workers and those questions most effective.
		There were several points raised so far.
		Steve, if I may address, I'm trying to do it quickly because several points raised.
		All proceeds go to workers and the firms most effective.
		And those proceeds are considerable.
		Third thing, I'm interested in solutions.
		I'm interested in getting energy infrastructure built.
		That means pipelines.
		That means carbon capture, storage, that means electricity grids.
		And here's how you do it.
		And we've already moved in the first month.
		Cooperation agreements with the provinces.
		Guess what?
		We are a federation.
		You need to cooperate with Quebec.
		You need to cooperate with the provinces.
		You need to get first nations and Indigenous people buy-in.
		You can do that through the one project, one review window that we put in place at that first minister's meeting, as well as, if necessary, using emergency powers to fulfill the federal responsibility, but not the unique.
unidentified		Mr. Polyev, you want to come back on that?
		What you're saying, Mr. Kearney, with respect, is a total contradiction.
		The no-due development law, C-69, guarantees there will not be a one-stop-shop because it requires the government of Canada to actually duplicate the same project.
		Have one-stop-shop over any energy development.
		Let's just let him finish his sentence.
		That is not true.
		In fact, Mr. Singh, the reality is we should have strong rules enforced once.
		We shouldn't have multiple levels of the environment.
		It takes now 17 years to get a major project approved in this country.
		That is why in the last 10 years we've had the worst economic growth in the entire region.
		We have to bought a pipeline energy.
		We cannot afford a liberal term.
		We need a change.
		And the Conservative plan for a change will include repealing the anti-pipeline law so we can get our energy to markets other than the United States.
		Mr. Singh then, Mr. Carney.
		While these two compete about who's more pro-pipeline, I think what we need to do is, I mean, it's clear, the Liberals bought a pipeline, they built a pipeline.
		I don't know what Pierre is complaining about.
		That's what they did.
		I think what we need to do, if we're talking about energy in our country, we need to build an East-West grid.
		Let's use our power as a nation to build a national project that creates good jobs, that strengthens us for the future, where we connect the low-cost energy from jurisdictions and provinces across this beautiful land and have low-cost energy for businesses, for people, so we can build a stronger economy.
		That's the energy of the future that we need.
		Mr. Carney.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Three quick points.
		First, the pipeline built, yes, TMX built.
		That's why oil exports up 50% over the course of the last few years.
		Secondly, Mr. Singh is absolutely right about the East-West Grid.
		Grid interconnections, which is part of the energy corridor, huge opportunities for this country.
		We have to be able to do more than one thing.
		Third point, fundamental point.
		We can give ourselves far more than Donald Trump can ever take away.
		If we have one Canadian economy, not 13, and if we just look at that agreement we got with the provinces, look at what Ontario and Nova Scotia have just announced in terms of their steps towards this.
		This is within our grasp.
unidentified		Mr. Blanchet, what should we be prepared to concede in our negotiations with the United States?
		I want to be back to something that Mr. Carney said.
		You can't do something and the opposite, and you can't fill people's minds with nonsense.
		Quebec has, by law, its own environmental review institution, and you cannot, through a federal decision, even through a Quebec government decision, go over the BAP, as we call it.
		If the BAP says no, it's no.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I know.
		I know.
		But this is in mind.
		This is the point.
		This is the point.
		The federal government can do the following, which is to take the decision to abide by the decision of the Quebec BAP.
		That is within the federal government's power.
		That is known as cooperative federalism.
		That's what we need to do.
unidentified		And do you want to understand one other point?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		This is what we need to do in a crisis.
unidentified		The building of those pipelines will take at least 10 to 14 years.
		Mr. Trump will be 90 years old, not president no more.
		And somebody, of course, less terrible will be there before you can even dream of having oil through this pipeline of yours.
		We're less than a minute to go.
		Mr. Polyev, I promise you, next.
		Listen, after the last 10 years of Liberals blocking pipelines and killing jobs, we actually need to get things done.
		We need a change.
		And our Conservative plan for change will repeal the No New Pipelines Law.
		It will create a true one-stop shop, set up shovel-ready zones with pre-permitting so that we can approve LNG liquefaction export plants, mines, pipelines, nuclear plants, and also hydroelectric dams so that we can generate the power we need to be strong, self-reliant, and stand on our own two feet for change.
		Last quick word to Mr. Carney.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Okay, quick word, bringing it back to what we're talking about, which is tariffs, the threats to Canada, how to negotiate.
		We need these options.
		We need these options to build domestically, to build one Canadian economy.
		We need to act.
		We need to diversify our trade partners.
unidentified		That is our time.
		Okay, you know my job tonight.
		I got to be the heavy guy here every now and then, making sure everybody comes to time.
		And I'm keeping an eye as well on making sure that everybody gets rough justice over here.
		That concludes our first section and our first debate.
		Up next, affordability and the cost of living.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Our goal is to double the pace of housing construction.
unidentified		You will lower your bills, build homes you can actually afford.
		We will talk about the Quebec businesses, the Quebec workers, the A&E.
		A big, powerful bring-it-home tax cut on work, investment, energy and home building.
		Okay, leaders, same idea.
		One-on-one questions, followed by open debate format.
		And Mr. Polyev, you get the first question this time.
		Many provinces, including some provinces with Conservative governments, have ambitious housing targets, none of which have been met.
		Why do you think your housing plan will be any different?
		Let me start by talking to the young people of the nation and those who are aspiring to home ownership.
		You know, it was only 10 years ago you could buy an average house for $450,000.
		But in the last lost Liberal decade, housing costs have doubled, rising faster than in any country in the G7.
		And so now our youth cannot afford a home, and our seniors are worried about being evicted.
		We can't afford a fourth Liberal term of rising housing costs.
		We need a change.
		And our Conservative plan for change will, one, axe the federal sales tax on new homes.
		Two, incentivize municipalities to cut their construction taxes to bring houses down in costs by $100,000.
		Three, sell off federal land for homes.
		And four, train up 350,000 young trades workers who can help build those homes.
		Because you deserve a home, and we're going to make it happen for a change.
		Also, on the issue of affordability, Mr. Singh, you get the next question.
		How do you bring down grocery prices in the midst of a trade war?
		I appreciate the question.
		This is a big concern.
		When I talk to Canadians, they tell me they're really feeling squeezed from the cost of living.
		That's one of the top things that people tell me about.
		People are saying, I can't afford to buy groceries.
		Every time I go to the grocery store, it's just ongoing worry and this feeling of anxiety that can I actually afford the things that my family needs.
		On top of that, people are worried about the cost of homes.
		I think those are the two biggest things I hear.
		So we can do things about this.
		Other countries have taken concrete steps.
		We can put in a price cap on food essentials.
		France has done it.
		Greece has done it to great success.
		It's brought down the cost of food significantly in both those jurisdictions.
		We can also ban corporate landlords from buying up the affordable homes to keep homes that are affordable affordable.
		We can make things better for Canadians, but it requires having the courage to take on the powerful corporations that are ripping you off, that are price gouging you.
		And we know that price gouging is one of the major reasons why food prices are going up.
		You're never going to hear Pierre Polyev or Mr. Carney talk about the fact that these are the corporations.
		Thank you, Mr. Singh.
		That's time.
		Mr. Blancher, I want to ask you about old age security, which will soon cost this country $100 billion annually.
		We understand you would like to expand it.
		How would you pay for that?
		We would want it to be just for everybody because the Liberals have created a discrimination against elders which are 65 to 75 years old, having 10% less income from the federal government than those who are over 75.
		But the best way to do it is to have everybody pay its fair share in terms of tax.
		Which means that one should not be entitled to hide money in fiscal paradise in order not to pay him or his clients or friends, not to pay billions of dollars in taxes that could be used to help the situation of elders.
		Those are things which are supposed to be applied to, I'm sorry, applied to everybody.
		There are a lot of questions to be answered about that.
		Other ways to do it is to reduce the pressure on housing price to make sure that the whole budget of elders and families and workers can afford houses which have increased dramatically in prices.
		That's time for this one.
		Mr. Carney, I want to ask you about housing, which over the past decade has gone from a problem to a crisis while the Liberals were in power.
		Is your policy on getting homes built any different from your predecessors and how?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		This is one of the reasons why I entered this contest because of the housing crisis, the cost of living crisis, the housing crisis, and the Trump crisis to help fix it.
		And I would say, look, the housing approach is fundamentally different because we need a fundamentally different approach.
		We need to build housing at a rate that we haven't seen since the end of the Second World War.
		We do need a fundamentally different approach.
		And with the fundamentally different approach, we can build an entirely new industry.
		So the question is how?
		Now, Mr. Polyev and I agree on some things.
		I agree as well on reducing the tax on first-time home purchases as a way to buy.
		But I am focused on increasing the supply of homes and doing that in a way that uses Canadian technology and modular prefabricated housing, that uses Canadian lumber, including in reinforced timber, and uses Canadian workers.
		And in all respects, we're scaling up to double the rate of homebuilding.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Carney.
		That's time.
		We now move to open forum here.
		And Mr. Singh, you got the first comment.
		Many of you have pledged to cut the GST on many aspects of buying a home.
		And Mr. Singh, I want to ask you, would you cut the GST on anything else in order to make life more affordable?
		Absolutely.
		In fact, I'm the only one on this stage that fought to give people a GST holiday.
		Interestingly, while that GST holiday helps working-class folks, middle-class folks, by taking off the GST off essentials, the Conservatives under Pierre Polyev voted against that.
		They oppose the idea of giving people, actual folks that need help, a tax break and would rather give millionaires a tax break, which shows you whose side he's on, which is not surprising.
		But what is surprising is that Mr. Carney also said that giving people a break on their GSC is a bad idea.
		Mr. Carney, why do you think giving a tax break to capital gains folks that earn more than a million dollars is a good idea, but helping a family afford their groceries, helping people afford their bills for their internet, their cell phone, their home heating, giving them relief to take the GST off those is a bad idea, but giving a tax break to people who really only earn over more than $1.4 million, that's somehow a good idea.
		That's your numbers.
		You went after Mr. Polyev first, so I'm going to give him the first shot to respond.
		Well, Mr. Kearney, the reality is that housing costs doubled under the Liberal government.
		While Justin Trudeau made exactly the same promises that you are now repeating today, he promised that he would double homebuilding.
		In fact, homebuilding went down.
		He promised that he'd reduce the cost.
		In fact, it went up.
		And now here we are.
		Mark Carney is asking for a fourth Liberal term, repeating the exact same Liberal promises that priced you out of a house.
		Just a few weeks ago, before the election, the Liberals voted against taking the GST off new homes.
		And they have continued to build up bureaucracies that block construction.
		We need a change so that you can afford a home.
		And our change will be, again, to axe the sales tax on new homes, incentivize municipalities to speed up permits, free up land, and cut development costs, train up 350,000 young people who can be in the trades to build those homes and sell off the land that is going to be needed in order to build homes.
		That is a real plan, a real plan for you to own a home and afford your life for a change.
		Mr. Kearney, they're coming at you from both sides.
		What do you say?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		I know it may be difficult, Mr. Polyev.
		You spent years running against Justin Trudeau and the carbon tax, and neither they're both gone.
		Okay.
		They're both gone.
unidentified		And we're in an impersonation of them with the same policies now.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Look, I'm a very different person from Justin Trudeau.
		Focus is on results.
		So how to drive results in the housing market?
		You've got to change the model of building.
		You've got to increase the financing for housing developers, $25 billion on the table for those housing developers, $10 billion for deeply affordable homes.
		Cutting development charges in half, lowering the cost of the building of those homes by 20%, and lowering the emissions and the run costs of those homes by another 20%.
		This is how you drive affordability.
		This is how you bring young people back into the housing system.
unidentified		You claim to be very different from Mr. Trudeau.
		Now, the point is to show that you are any better than Mr. Trudeau.
		You claim to have a lot of experience in many things, and you know things.
		Last time we had somebody saying that they knew things, it was a senators, and they killed the law that protected supply management because they knew better than us and were elected by nobody exactly like you are today.
		You say that you are a great crisis manager.
		Which one?
		I heard of nothing.
		As far as I know, Brexit happened, even if you were against it.
		You say you are a great negotiator.
		What have you negotiated but fiscal paradises in Bermudas or Cayman Islands?
		You have to prove something and you have to reveal what you own in those companies if you want people to believe you.
		Mr. Singh, you wanted to.
		Yes, returning to the topic of housing.
		Now, it's very important, obviously, we need to build homes that people can afford.
		Mr. Polyev had the opportunity to show us what he could do.
		He was a minister of housing under Stephen Harper.
		And during that time, guess how many homes he built?
		He built six homes during that entire time.
		This is not somebody you can trust to build homes.
		He built 200,000.
		This has been confirmed again and again.
		He earned six homes.
		That's it.
		Now, the problem, though, with Mr. Carney is, well, he's laid out a plan.
		The problem is that when he was the chair of Brookville Investments, this is a company that made a strategic decision to buy up affordable homes in cities like Toronto where people were paying a decent rent.
		And they purposely bought those homes, kicked out the tenants, and jacked up the rents.
		That is not someone you can trust, sadly, to deal with the housing crisis when Mr. Carney profited off of it.
		We're going to get responses here.
		Mr. Polyev first, Mr. Carney, second.
		First of all, Mr. Singh.
		I'm going to hold this up to remind you that the Toronto Star, the Toronto Star debunked your false history.
		It was six homes and a half.
		And I appreciate neither Liberals nor NDP are very good with math, but in that year I was great.
		The year I was high enough, though.
		The year I was minister, we had 200,000 homes built.
		And guess what?
		The average price of a home was at the time, $450,000.
		Guess what happened?
		One of the one bedrooms rented out for $900.
		And that since that time, housing costs have actually doubled under the Liberals.
		Now we have Mr. Kearney making tens of billions of dollars of spending promises that will ultimately continue to build bureaucracy.
		We don't need more bureaucracy in Ottawa.
		We tried that for 10 liberal years, Mr. Carney.
		What we need is to build homes in communities.
		Certainly that means taxing taxes on home building and getting the government out of the way so that builders can actually build.
		Mr. Carney, you are on housing.
		We need a change.
		And you, sir, are not a change.
		Mark Carney.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to pick up on, I thought that answer was quite revealing.
		The first thing is that it's an attitude towards housing that absolutely ignores affordable housing, deeply affordable housing, issues with vulnerable people, ignores the rental market, ignores all other aspects of it.
		So the six are the relevant.
		Mr. Singh is absolutely right.
		The six are the relevant.
		The 200,000 are a different part of the housing market.
		There are many Canadians.
		There are many Canadians at different income levels.
		The second thing it reveals is a misunderstanding or, well, a misunderstanding, I'll be polite, of how the government's balance sheet can catalyze enormous private investment.
		And that is what we need to do to solve the housing crisis.
		It happens to be what we need to do as a whole to address the economic crisis that's been forced on us by President Trump.
unidentified		Mr. Blanchet?
		Yeah.
		You have spoken much more than I have, so I won't ask a question.
		I will make a statement instead.
		I'm not saying no.
		I'm not saying that you cannot do what you pretend that you are able to do.
		We just have no proof so far.
		I'm saying quite clearly that you cannot be entitled to do it alone.
		You cannot be entitled to hold all the power in your two hands.
		You cannot go out there and fix things for Canada and Quebec without being seriously checked by serious people.
		You cannot go out there and speak for Quebec without Quebec having its own strong voice to protect itself and to promote its different economies.
		So if you want to collaborate, let's say right now that whatever happens, even if minority government happens, you will be a partner with the different Quebec economy and identity, which you have been not interested in for the economic part and not respectful for the identity part.
		Let me get Mr. Singh in at this point.
		Can you tell us what's the first thing you would do to make life more affordable for Canadians?
		There's a lot of things that we can do, and I've laid out some of those things.
		I think fundamentally, I'm the only person on stage that not only fought for real relief for people in terms of affordability, I'm the only one that fought for pharmacare that actually makes life more affordable by giving people medication coverage, dental care that gives people more affordability by letting them access their services if you're a senior and a kid.
		I fought for child care to make sure people could afford child care.
		All measures that Mr. Polyev voted against, all measures that Mr. Blanchet voted against.
		So if you want someone that's going to fight for you in Ottawa to actually make life more affordable, you can't entrust all the power to Mr. Carney.
		Doesn't have a track record of making life more affordable for people, but we do.
		So vote for a new Democrat and we'll continue this work to make life more affordable for you.
		While the Conservatives and the bloc have voted against those measures to make life affordable, because that's not who they care about, you Democrats are in it for you.
		Pierre Polyev.
		The number one expense for families today is taxes, more than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined.
		This after 10 years of Liberal tax increases, we can't afford a fourth term of high liberal taxes.
		That's why Conservatives have a plan for change.
		And that planning against every measure to help people cutting income taxes by 15% for the average worker and senior, saving a working couple up to $2,000, rewarding hard work again.
		Because hard work is actually being punished because of the very high taxes.
		Now, the Liberals promised 10 years ago they would lower them.
		They actually raised taxes on 9 out of 10 Canadians.
		We need a change in this country because your hard work should once again pay off with a powerful paycheck that buys you an affordable food, affordable home, $2,000.
		And that's what we will deliver.
		You want to save people $2,000 but cut their dental care, which is thousands of dollars, cut their child care, which is thousands of dollars, cut pharmacare coverage, which is thousands of dollars.
		That's not a very good math deal right there.
		You're going to save people $2,000 but cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
		That's why you cannot afford conservatives and you certainly can't trust the Liberal Commission.
		Mark Kearney's turn.
		You need new Democrats.
		Mark Kearney.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to reinforce that point and then I'll respond to Mr. Blanchet.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Child care in this country, $3,000 to $10,000 a year for a family, depending on where you live.
unidentified		Province Jurisdiction.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Depending on where you live, that's what's being saved there.
		$800 per trip to the dentist.
		We have expanded dental care million.
		$4 million.
unidentified		Because new Democrats.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		These are fundamental issues for affordability.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		We're talking about affordability and taking them off in order to income taxes.
unidentified		Quebec.
		That's not what I've said.
		And in terms of working with Quebec for Canadians.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Yes, absolutely.
		Throughout the short time I've been Prime Minister, working directly with the Premier of Quebec, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, our Minister of Finance are from Quebec.
		Quebec and Quebec issues, whether it's a good idea.
unidentified		Why I want to answer Mr. Gaud's letter.
		He asked five things in the letter.
		He reduced his expectations.
		And you did not even answer him.
		And tonight, you are so much in love with Quebec.
		Steve, the question that Canadians have to ask is that he's not going to be able to do it.
		Mr. Singh, sorry, he has the floor.
		The question you have to ask is: after a decade of Liberal promises, can you afford food?
		Is your housing more affordable than it used to be?
		What is your cost of living like compared to what it was a decade ago?
		And are you prepared to elect the same Liberal MPs, the same Liberal ministers, the same Liberal staffers all over again for a fourth term?
		Mr. Carney, Justin Trudeau's staffers are actually here with you at this debate in Montreal, writing the talking points that you are regurgitating into the microphone.
		How can we possibly believe that you are any different than the previous 10 years of Liberal government?
		45 seconds left in this segment for you to respond to that.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Look, I do my own talking points.
		Thank you very much.
		The biggest risk we have to affordability, the biggest risk we have to this economy, is Donald Trump.
		So first and foremost, we've got to get that right.
		Secondly, we need to do it in a way that brings everyone along together.
		That means preserving pharmacare, dental care, child care, reinforcing health care, spending our money.
unidentified		Intrusion, intrusion, intrusion, intrusion in Quebec over and again.
		I like working any better than we are.
		The clock is not available.
		Is there one thing Canadians can do that Quebecers cannot do?
		You are doing intrusions in our jurisdiction with our money, pretending you are better.
		And most of the time, you try to copy what we did with our own money against us.
		What's that as a policy?
		Don't you have your own things to talk about?
		That really is time for this segment.
		I wanted to be polite and let everybody finish their points.
		But far beyond that.
		We got to move on.
		I took the liberty.
		Thank you.
		Okay, that ends section two.
		Up next, public safety and security.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Fight crime to protect Canadians and to build communities that are safe, secure, and strong.
unidentified		Keep crime, drugs, stolen cars, and other illegal substances out of our country.
		We're going to invest in our borders, and that means hiring more border officers.
		Resources are in short supply, not enough staff.
		This is not the nice way to treat people who come to our border.
		Okay, same format.
		One-on-one questions and then open debate.
		Mr. Blanchet, you get to go first in this one.
		Public safety and security.
		For a lot of people, that means the fentanyl crisis.
		I'd like to know what you could contribute to ending that crisis in this country.
		The fentanyl crisis is a very serious issue, which is a bit less important in Quebec than it is in British Columbia.
		I think the whole border thing is the real issue.
		Immigration is a very important issue for Quebecers.
		Immigration has to be dealt with in an orderly fashion.
		Our borders are not dealt with in an orderly fashion.
		The rules are not respected.
		The rules are unclear.
		Some rules even invite people to hide for two weeks illegally before coming out.
		Something has to be done.
		The situation of one person asking for asylum may take as much as four years without us reducing the number in order to deal with them in a human way.
		The services for every citizen in Quebec are being reduced because we cannot afford the fact that we are receiving much, much more people in Quebec from this specific type of immigration than we can afford, and we cannot teach them French.
		That's time, Mr. Blanchet.
		We can, of course, return to the immigration issue during open debate, should you choose to.
		Mr. Carney, question for you: the Liberal gun buyback policy, not considered a success by many people.
		Reviving it is in your platform.
		Why would it work this time?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think, well, what we've seen with that policy is some success at the commercial level, but not at the individual level, because it hasn't been, in my opinion, it hasn't been organized properly and it needs to be organized properly.
		And I've instructed the Minister of National Security and Public Safety in order to do that.
		So part of this is a different focus of government, a focus on results, a focus on clear milestones in the short term.
		Let me make a broader point, though, on gun, which is that we have a problem with guns coming over our borders, which is why we've tightened our borders.
		We have an issue, though, with a gun industry that is continually coming up with new forms of assault rifles, mass killing machines.
		We've banned over 2,000 of these.
		Every single time there has been a vote in the House of Commons on gun control, Mr. Polyev has voted against it.
		You can't be tough on crime unless you're tough on guns.
unidentified		Mr. Polyev, you can come back on that in the open debate if you want to, but my question for you in this segment is: Indigenous people are statistically overrepresented in our corrections system.
		Are you concerned that your tough on crime platform will make that worse?
		I'm concerned that Indigenous people are disproportionately the victims of crime.
		I give you the example of a wonderful group of Indigenous people who came under attack in Saskatchewan, and many of them were murdered.
		Killer was out of jail after 60 prior convictions.
		This is the result of 10 years of liberal laws that allow the same offenders to be released dozens and dozens of times, even when it's known they are in danger.
		We can't risk a fourth liberal term of soft on crime policies.
		We need a change.
		And the Conservative plan for change will bring in a three-strikes or outlaw, three convictions for serious crimes.
		You go to jail for at least 10 years, maybe for life, no chance of parole or bail.
		We will bring in life sentences for traffickers of fentanyl, human beings, and guns.
		And we will secure our borders to keep the legal safety.
		Thank you, Mr. Polyev.
		That's time.
		Mr. Singh, your question is about the RCMP, because you've got RCMP reform in your platform.
		What, in your view, is the problem with the RCMP?
		Well, some of the basis for this is a concern that's been raised in more rural communities and northern communities that there have been some serious concerns about violence or inappropriate use of force when it comes to the execution of their duties.
		We want to make sure that we've got a top-tier police force that provides security and safety to those communities in a way that's sensitive and understanding of the communities they're serving.
		I also think what's very important is for Indigenous communities, Indigenous policing.
		This is an area of deep concern.
		I think everyone in our country should be safe.
		You should be able to be safe at home, safe when you go to work, safe if you take public transit, safe for your kids to be able to play in the local playground.
		And that's something I'm committed to.
		The other area that I'm focused on when it comes to public safety is making sure we prevent crime before it happens.
		And that's why we want to see increased investments in our border security.
		We saw under the Conservatives, they cut 1,100 border officers in one day.
		So that prevented our ability to keep our borders safe.
		That stops those materials.
		That's time.
		Not sure it was about the RCMP, but maybe we can get back to that during the open debate segment, which we go to right now.
		And Mr. Polyev, you get the first word on this one.
		And it sort of dovetails on the last answer you gave, which is, you have pledged to be the first Prime Minister in this country to use the notwithstanding clause setting aside charter rights of, as you call them, multiple murderers.
		Why do you think that's necessary?
		To be clear, I want to uphold the charter rights of Canadians under Section 7 to life, liberty, and security of the person.
		Right now, that right is violated by multiple murderers who are given discounts.
		The case in question was a gentleman who went into a mosque and shot dead six innocent worshippers.
		He got, according to this ruling, only one 25-year sentence, meaning he can be out in his 50s.
		He only serves four years for every murder that he carried out.
		That is outrageous.
		And I will use the constitutional powers that are created for this purpose to ensure that mass murderers stay in maximum security penitentiary for life.
		They will only come out in a box.
		We will also pass tough new laws that prevent repeat offenders from getting out.
		If you commit three offences under the three strikes law I propose, you will not be allowed out of jail until you prove that you are drug-free, that you have behaved perfectly, and that you've learned an employable skill and you've served a 10-year sentence.
		We cannot allow liberal crime and chaos to go on terrorizing our communities.
		What we need is a real plan for change so that we can bring back the safety and the security that Canadians used to take for granted.
		Let me get Mr. Carney to respond to you that.
		Do you think that's an appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause of the Charter?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I think that one of the core responsibilities of the federal government, Prime Minister, is to defend the fundamental rights and liberties of Canadians.
		And those fundamental rights and liberties of Canadians are outlined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is 43 years old, literally, today.
		I think it's a very dangerous slope to override judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada.
		In fact, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists to protect Canadians from people like us on the stage.
		Politicians who may use their power to override fundamental rights.
		And the issue in using by the federal government, I'll stop here, is not where you start, but where will you stop?
unidentified		Mr. Polyev, I should get Mr. Polyev on that.
		Is it a slippery slope that we should use it in this case?
		I must say, I would be quite interested too, because Mr. Carney said that he didn't want us to use the notwithstanding cause clause before adopting a law.
		And yesterday he said that he felt that it was wrong to use the notwithstanding clause after a law is adopted.
		So if we cannot use it before and we cannot use it after, it means that Mr. Carney believes that we should never use it.
		But it is very important.
		And the Ford case made it clear.
		The Constitution says how it should be used, but never how or what we will do with it, because it's the prerogative of the provinces.
		So do you want the Supreme Court to overrule another judgment of the same Supreme Court because you don't like it?
		Because that would be being the hell of a politician as you define them.
		Well, let me just start by saying, first of all, yeah, thank you.
		I just started by saying, let's not let Mr. Polyev get away with making this ludicrous claim that anyone on this stage thinks that violent crime should get a less severe penalty.
		Obviously, that is not a special position that he's taking.
		Everyone agrees that horrible crimes should have horrible sentences.
		Judges are equipped to do that, so don't let Mr. Polyev's rhetoric confuse people.
		Obviously, everyone agrees that if someone does something horrible, they should pay a horrible price for it.
		There should be appropriate sentence that's put in place by a judge.
		But what I'm concerned about is all of what Mr. Polyev is talking about is after the fact.
		Now, there's heinous things that happen, and there needs to be severe penalties put in place.
		But we also need to keep communities safe.
		And that's what my focus is.
		Well, how do we stop crime before it happens?
		Much of the violent crime that's committed is committed by illegal handguns and firearms that come across the border.
		Now, Mr. Polyev has admitted that as well, that it is illegal handguns and illegal weapons that are used in violent crime.
		So our plan is let's stop those illegal weapons getting into our country in the first place.
		And the way we do that is by having stronger border security officers and having more people on the border.
		Mr. Pierre Polyev, when he was in power in the Conservatives, they cut the number of border officers.
		They reduced the number of weakening our borders.
		Keeping an eye on time.
		We can't trust them.
		Let's get back to Mr. Polyev on the issue of whether in using the notwithstanding clause under these circumstances would be a kind of a slippery slope and encourage politicians to use it more.
		No, we will use it to protect the charter rights of law-abiding Canadians.
		I'm interested in the rights of victims.
		Mr. Carney seems to be very interested in the rights of criminals.
		He says that it's dangerous for me to ensure that mass murderers stay behind bars for life.
		You know what's dangerous?
		Turning them loose on our streets.
		I don't think you appreciate, sir, the chaos that is unfolding in communities.
		In Toronto right now, the police have been forced to tell people to just let the thief steal the car.
		When they break into the house, just take the keys.
		Just let them take the keys so that you don't get hurt.
		People are living in terror in many of our communities precisely because of the catch-and-release bail law, C-75, which requires judges to release the accused at the earliest opportunity under the least onerous conditions.
		Every single member of your Liberal caucus and your Liberal cabinet voted in favor of this bill, and they are all determined to keep it in place despite constant promises to the contrary.
		Mr. Carney, Canadians deserve to live in peace and security.
		That is the right that I'm fighting for for a change.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I'm fighting for that as well.
		And let me be specific about two things that have been raised.
		The first is with respect to these issues of car theft, home invasion, and I'll use the greater GTA area where there has been a sharp increase.
		How do you attack that?
		You attack it several ways.
		One, you increase the criminal penalties for that happening, particularly if you're part of a gang, particularly if you use a firearm.
		And you will do that?
		And we're doing so.
		We've committed to doing so.
		You put in place a reverse onus in terms of bail so that it has to be proven that there's not a risk, which we've also committed to.
		And then you go to what Mr. Singh was talking about, which is we have to reinforce our frontiers.
		That's why we're committing to an extra thousand Canada Border Service agents, an extra thousand RCMPs.
		That's why, as part of the broader fentanyl initiative, where we've added to the RCMP there, we've added drones, we're adding helicopters, we're adding surveillance, and we're going to the other end of the chain with respect to car theft, which is tightening security at the ports.
		This is what we need.
		In order to get results, you need to focus at both ends of the chains in federal.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
		I want to talk about one of the issues that has come up is the idea of the public safety concerns around the overdose crisis and how this is devastating our communities.
		We're seeing so many lives being lost.
		In that, we know that one of the ways to address that is by investing in some of the solutions like mental health services and rehabilitation services.
		Services keep our communities safe, having access to those good services.
		Both Mr. Carney and Mr. Polyev are proposing cutting government spending and cutting those services.
		That's not going to make our communities safer.
		We need to see better investments in rehabilitation services, more investments in mental health.
		We need to respond to this serious crisis in our country with care and compassion.
		I've met with Mom Stop the Harm, an organization of moms that have lost their children to this opioid overdose crisis.
		They've literally had their children have died because of this.
		And they're saying we need to do everything possible to save lives, to stop this death from happening.
		And I think we need to listen to those moms, and that's my commitment.
		Mr. Blanche.
		Two things as rapidly as possible.
		First, we believe that we should act on crime gangs and organizations, defining them as we do for terrorist organizations.
		We have to protect our kids from the violence of those gangs, from the drugs being sold by those gangs, from the guns and whatever else being sold by those gangs.
		Sold.
		And not sold, being, you know, you purchase a thing and selling, sold, sold, sold by those gangs.
		And we mostly have to protect our kids from being recruited by those gangs, becoming violent at 13 and 14 and 16 years old, because this is the real fear of parents like I am.
		This is a very dangerous situation.
		I want to come back to immigration because we said that we would come back to immigration.
		Do you remember the Century initiative?
		A sad memory.
		Officially, they said that they had not considered Quebec difference.
		They had not considered Quebec language.
		They wanted Canada to be a 100 million people country by the end of the century.
		Mr. Barton told myself, told me himself, that he had not even thought about the Quebec difference in that analysis.
		And one of his closest collaborators is now a close counselor to Mr. Carney, which seems to be part also of that kind of project or ideology.
		So it is impossible for Canada to have all those people come into Canada.
		It is impossible for Quebec to receive all those people.
		And in Quebec, we have the language and values and secularity of the state issue, which is very important.
		So I say pose, pose, pose.
		Let's do things properly.
		Let's receive migrants in an orderly fashion and successfully as a measure of respect for them also.
		Mr. Polyev, you wanted a word.
		I speak to families all the time who are terrified by the scourge of drugs and illegal guns.
		And we know those guns are not Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle.
		So when the Liberals try to ban hunting rifles, they're really going after the wrong people.
		90% of guns that come in that are used in crime are smuggled illegally over the poorest Liberal-run borders.
		The border is why the police is not true.
		And that's literally the police in the Senate.
		Actually, if I could, the police actually endorsed the police in Barrie, in Peel, in Sault Ste. Marie have all endorsed me because they know that I will go after the gun smugglers and criminals with 2,000 extra frontline border guards that will stop the guns from coming in.
		But unlike the Liberals and NDP, I will not ban hunting rifles.
		The Liberals want to protect Canadians from criminals.
		The Liberals want to protect Turkeys from hunters.
		I think we know which one makes this difference.
		Quick intervention, Mr. Kearney.
		Then I got a question for each of you before this segment's out.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		We absolutely fully support hunting and rights of hunters and Indigenous Canadians.
		But I want to raise an issue which is a serious issue, talking about safety.
		There are people, we're in Montreal, in Montreal, in Toronto, across this country, who fear going to their synagogue, fear going to their community center, fear taking their children, leaving their children in school.
		And this has to stop.
		It's totally unacceptable.
		So what we're proposing is to make it a criminal offense to threaten or to impede anyone from being near or going to their place of worship, their school, their community center.
		It pains me that when we have to do it, because this is not what we should be doing as Canadians, of course, but we will put that in place.
unidentified		And this is a fundamental issue with 10 seconds from each of you before this segment's out on what you perceive to be the biggest security threat to Canada right now.
		10 seconds each.
		Mr. Polyev.
		The physical security threat to our country is the rampant crime wave that is running out of control.
		After the last decade, we had a 116% increase in gun crime.
		We need to lock up the criminals.
		I've got to hold you there 10 seconds.
		Mr. Kearney?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're in a security section.
		I think we didn't have a chance to talk about anything internationally.
		I think the biggest security threat to Canada is China.
unidentified		China, you say.
		Mr. Singh.
		Biggest security threat, illegal guns and drugs coming across the border and cuts to services that would make our public safety and security even worse.
		Last word to Monsieur Blanché.
		The fact that neither Quebec or Canada is able to protect itself and that we are still dependent and entirely dependent on Americans to protect us.
		Okay, that is the end of that section, gentlemen.
		Up next, energy and climate.
		Proving pipelines, getting things built, unleashing production.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		We are unlocking major infrastructure projects, including in conventional energy.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Oil and gas.
unidentified		We're speaking thousands of dollars a year for each family to pay for the damages of climate change.
		We can absolutely build important projects like an East West energy grid.
		Energy and climate change.
		I know how much all of you love talking about pipelines, so here we go.
		Mr. Singh, to you first.
		Should Canada build new pipelines to get our oil and gas to market?
		Well, it's not an approach I favor with public money.
		There's not any projects that are on the table, so it's not a specific project to look at.
		I favor, when it comes to the environment, building an East West energy grid that connects low-cost energy and allows for families to reduce their electricity costs.
		But let's put this all in context.
		We're talking about what our energy solutions are in the context of a climate crisis.
		And we're not just talking about a climate crisis in the far future.
		We're living it right now.
		I remember I met a mom a couple years ago before I had kids who told me she was worried about taking her kids out on some days because of the forest fires in BC.
		It meant that it was unsafe for kids to go outdoors.
		Fast forward to when I became a parent just a couple years after that, and I literally worry about the same thing.
		The forest fires we saw a couple years ago meant that many places that didn't see this before saw days where there was such smoke in the air that it was dangerous for kids.
		We see extreme weather, forest fires, heat domes, floods impacting us.
		We've got to do everything we can.
		Thank you, Mr. Singh.
		That's time.
		Mr. Polyev, where does fighting climate change land on your list of priorities when it comes to expanding energy opportunities in this country?
		It lands within our priorities of bringing home jobs while bringing down emissions around the world.
		Look, the reality is that if we push production out of our country to more polluting countries, it actually makes the problem worse.
		But that has been exactly the Liberal approach.
		With the anti-development law of C-69, blocking of 15 LNG export plants over the last 10 years, we have seen more of those jobs go abroad.
		I want to bring them home.
		My plan will be to approve, for example, natural gas liquefaction and export.
		If we sent our gas to India, for example, to displace half of their demand for electricity, we could reduce emissions by 2.5 billion tons, which is three times the total emissions of Canada.
		That's the way we bring emissions down and jobs up.
		It's common sense, and now it's time to bring it home.
		Thank you, Mr. Polyev.
		The next question is for Mr. Kearney.
		How would your government fast-track pipelines and mining projects while also following the Supreme Court decision that requires consent of Indigenous communities?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think the first thing, and this goes back a bit to where we started, which is recognizing that we are in a crisis.
		We need to act with maximum force and having a process and a consultation, but a consultation with a purpose, which is to identify those projects, those investments of national interest that are really going to move the dial in terms of growth, jobs, energy security, well-being consistent with long-term competitiveness, which necessarily means lower carbon.
		And so part of that process is ensuring that First Nations, Indigenous peoples, are there from the start.
		It also includes their ability to participate fully in those projects.
		And that's why, and I know you, I can tell, you've got to tell on when I've gone on too long, so I'll finish up.
		Which is that's why we're doubling, our proposal is to double the Indigenous loan guarantee program to $10 billion.
		What does that actually mean?
		It means an ability for them to invest equity in those partners.
		Thank you.
unidentified		My tell is my clock, and my clock is at zero, so that's how it goes.
		Mr. Blanchet, do you still oppose pipeline construction in Quebec, even though a majority of Quebecers now apparently say they support it?
		We will know about that when we have the debate about that, which has not begun yet.
		We are just bigoting it.
		First, we are hearing very creative numbers and we are being fed nonsense.
		And we will be back to it in a few minutes.
		But energy trade commerce is from south to north or north to south.
		And it's true in Quebec also.
		In a little more than three years, Donald Trump won't be in office.
		And there will be not one more pipeline having been built once we get there.
		So let's be serious, responsible, and we will be back with the numbers.
		We don't want to pay in Quebec for such monstrosities, which will provide us with nothing.
		We now move to open debate, and you all will get a chance or have had a chance to get the first shot at this.
		Monsieur Blanché, it is your turn to get the first shot.
		Canada has a substantial supply of critical minerals, which are in high demand.
		Are you in favor of allowing these minerals to be mined?
		Of course.
		It has to be done properly.
		Quebec has probably the most important clean phosphat reserves in North America.
		In Sagny-Lac-Saint-Jean, it is very important.
		It has to be exploited.
		This is the best way to use Parl-Sagny as an infrastructure that we need.
		We have litium.
		Everybody needs litium.
		Transportation has to be taken from oil to clean energy.
		This is what we want to be working on.
		It is part of the specificities, specifics of Quebec economy.
		So we are in favor of that.
		But we don't want to pay for the 30 billions of dollars which have been spent on oil and gas by the Liberals last year.
		It's $7 billions of dollars from Quebec.
		We don't want to pay for the 40 billions of dollars which have been spent by the Liberals on Transmountain.
		It's 9 billions of dollars from Quebec.
		Those are 16 billions of dollars, of which not $1 has been spent in Quebec to develop a lot more power and wealth for Quebecers with our own money.
		We need to let the leader of the Liberals respond.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, actually, I was going to pick up on the enormous opportunity that exists in Quebec, exists in Ontario, exists in the north of Canada, really exists across this great nation in terms of critical metals and minerals.
		We have one of the biggest resources in this country.
		And this is not just an enormous economic opportunity.
		It is a strategic opportunity for Canada.
		So we have to make a decision, not just to develop it, but how do we develop it and who are our partners for it?
		Do we become more dependent on the United States, which is what they want?
		By the way, President Trump this week said he might put a tax on critical metals and minerals, just showing again.
		If I may.
		And so the discussions.
		Let me finish.
		So the opportunity includes in Europe and includes in Asia as our partners.
		Last point.
		In order to get it done, in order to get it done, we'll put in place a first and last mile fund.
		So these projects are connected to road and rail so they can go quickly to market.
		And we will have all of the other fast-tracking measures in place that I talked about earlier in terms of capital, timing, approvals, so that we can move quickly.
		We can be stronger at home, better at all.
unidentified		Always with the absolute level of floor.
		We should absolutely take advantage of the fact that we've got incredible amounts of critical minerals in our country.
		And the way we do that is with any energy project or any project of this nature, make sure it's got the local community buy-in.
		It creates good jobs in communities.
		Make sure we are meeting all our environmental needs, and we work with Indigenous partnerships.
		And so, I absolutely agree with that.
		I want to build on something Mr. Blanche mentioned about the investments that this country has made.
		What I found very troubling is that the past number of years, the Liberal government record is one where we have spent the most subsidies compared to any other country in the G7 on subsidizing oil and gas.
		These are highly profitable companies.
		You voted.
		I think that's the wrong thing to do.
		We fought against it again and again.
		No, you voted again.
		And then the Liberals have continued to do it.
		So, my question really to Mr. Carney is: will you commit to ending oil and gas subsidies?
		We should be using that to invest in people, not giving it to highly profitable oil and gas companies.
		I promise Mr. Polyev will come back and get that question answered.
		Mr. Polyev.
		Well, Mr. Kearney, you point out that Donald Trump has a wrong-headed idea of putting a tax on our mines and our industry, and that is wrong.
		But so do you.
		You want to apply a massive industrial carbon tax on Canadian mines, Canadian steel mills, Canadian aluminum plants, Canadian oil and gas plants.
		And your idea is to double the tax that Trump is applying by hitting them a second time.
		This will do nothing for the environment.
		It will actually ship our jobs south of the border.
		Mr. Polyev's plan is likely to President Trump wants.
		My plan is to bring that production home here to Canada.
		For example, I will give a tax credit to low-emitting Canadian industry like Quebec's aluminum, for example, or British Columbia's natural gas, so that we not only bring home the production, but we do it below global average levels of emissions, that we actually help the environment while bringing home the jobs for our people at the same time.
		That is a sensible, pragmatic approach that puts us in charge of our economic destiny so we can stand up to the Americans from a position of strength for a change.
		Mr. Mark, I want to give you a chance to speak to Mr. Singh's criticism about oil and gas subsidies and Mr. Polyev's criticism about the industrial carbon tax.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I'm going to make three points.
		I'll make four if you want me to respond to that, but I want to make three.
		The first is that I answered this question last night, but I think the pucket already dropped in the Canadians game, so not everyone heard it.
		Yes, end to oil and gas subsidies.
		That's why you need new democracy.
		Secondly, I would have done it independently.
		Secondly, recognizing that the biggest component of that was the cost of building Keystone.
		Keystone, which is the pipeline which has helped to increase oil and gas exports or oil exports rather than by 50% in this country.
		That is an asset of the people of Canada.
		We own it.
		And the question is, what to do is it's not a subsidy that has disappeared, it is actually an asset of Canada.
		Third point, though, in terms of where the oil and gas industry, particularly the oil industry, wants to and needs to go, which is to become low carbon, low carbon in the production and transportation of oil.
		One of the big projects we need to move forward with is carbon capture and storage, the Pathways Project, so that we have oil and gas that is competitive, not just today, 10 years from now and 20 years from now, as the world uses less.
		We want to have more market share.
		We need to do that.
		My government will move that.
unidentified		But by definition, a subsidy isn't when we buy a pipeline.
		I'm talking about subsidies that go to oil and gas companies that are independent, separate from the country, oil and gas companies.
		That's what I'm doing.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		The figure you quoted last night included the cost of the pipeline.
unidentified		Sorry, can we get you to address his point about industrial carbon?
unidentified		How much will the industrial carbon tax add to the price of a car?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		So the first thing I want to say is we have, I'm going to address the broader point.
		Well, the broader point is the entire absence of a climate plan from Mr. Polyev, which, by the way, is going to put our industry and our country at a disadvantage as we're looking for new trading partners.
		Guess what?
		Most people want to deepen our partnership in Europe, in Asia.
		Those countries care about whether or not you've made progress.
		Second thing is, we're designing a program so that the big polluters pay Canadians at home for making responsible climate choices, for retrofitting their home, getting their emissions down, or improving otherwise.
		And that is smart climate policy.
		It's better for the big polluters and it's better for Canadians.
unidentified		Pierre Polyev.
		Mr. Kearney didn't answer my question.
		I asked how much would an industrial carbon tax on Canadian steel add to the price of a car.
		He won't answer because he knows that it will be very expensive because there's lots of steel in cars.
		Now, well, Mr. Kearney has temporarily hidden the carbon.
		I don't answer either.
		He's just thrown out of the middle.
		Thousands of dollars, thousands of dollars.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I actually do know the answer.
unidentified		When you add taxes to steel, you raise the price of everything that uses steel.
		When you add everything, when you add the carbon tax onto the price of, for example, fertilizer, you increase the price of food.
		So while Mr. Kearney has temporarily hidden the Liberal carbon tax at the pumps while keeping the tax fully in law and planning to raise it after the election, he's also going after a tax on our industry that will ultimately be passed on to you.
		After a lost liberal decade of rising costs, we cannot afford a fourth Liberal term.
		We need a new government that will fully axe the carbon tax, increase the jobs that we have here in Canada, and bring down your cost of living.
		We've got just a little over three minutes left in this segment.
		So, Mr. Singh, I want to ask you, do you think climate change is still a priority from Canadians?
		You're out there.
		What are you hearing?
		Absolutely.
		You speak to any young person and they think, you know, we're seeing climate crisis in front of us happening right now.
		Speak to seniors who say, you know, we used to be able to live in our homes without air conditioning, and now we're seeing heat crises in communities that never had worries about extreme weather.
		We're seeing flooding, we're seeing forest fires like never before.
		We are living in a climate crisis.
		So Canadians are absolutely worried about it.
		As soon as we come into a summer, we start seeing those forest fires again.
		It's top of mind for Canadians because they're living it, they're seeing it.
		And I want those Canadians to know Mr. Carney is not going to end those fossil fuel subsidies unless I'm there to fight back.
		Mr. Polyev wants to let big polluters pollute as much as they want, poison our beautiful land, our water, the air.
		He wants to let them dump into our oceans.
		I'm going to fight back and defend our environment.
		Monsieur Blanché, on the issue of whether or not people still care about climate change.
		I think people should be kept very informed about climate change because we are in a very strange denial situation about climate change, which still exists and is very expensive.
		And I'm sorry to crash your party, guys, but you are telling fairy tales.
		Clean oil and gas is a fairy tale.
		Large-scale carbon sequestration is a fairy tale.
		It does not exist.
		If Alberta wanted to exploit oil and gas and it were not a matter of pollution, I wouldn't mind at all.
		That's their business.
		Our own powerhouse in terms of energy in Quebec is clean energy.
		We are the best place in the world to achieve that.
		Our market is the northeastern part, Democrat part of the United States.
		We want to keep our money to create wealth in Quebec for Quebecers.
		Let me give Mr. Diffrent, because we can afford to be able to do that.
		I will get to you because I said I would.
		But you've taken a couple of hits here, and I want to give you a chance to respond to some of the things that people on this side of the stage have said.
		Thank you.
		Well, first of all, we do support protecting the environment, banning.
		We want to ban the dumping of raw sewage into our waters.
		We want to hold large corporations to high environmental standards to protect our water and air.
		But we cannot do that by raising taxes and sending jobs overseas, as Mr. Kearney is proposing to do.
		That has been the approach of the last 10 years of the Liberal government.
		What the biggest companies that develop our resources say is that we need to repeal the Liberal Anti-Development Law C-69, a law Mr. Kearney wants to keep in place.
		They say we need to repeal the industrial carbon tax and get rid of the Liberal energy cap.
		We need six months' approvals in order to take back energy security and energy sovereignty.
		Last word to Mr. Kearney in this segment, please.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
		You know, I was born in Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories, just north of what the oil sands became.
		When I was born and when I was growing up in Edmonton, early days, it was a fairy tale, quote unquote.
		But you know what happened?
		Canadian ingenuity, Canadian engineers, Canadian governments, both the federal government and the Alberta government got together and created, converted this.
		The worst possibility of the USA.
		If I may.
unidentified		The worst.
		10 more seconds to finish.
		Let him finish his point.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		That's the opportunity we have.
		That's the opportunity we have in carbon capture.
		That's the opportunity we have in small modular reactors.
		That's the opportunity we have in hydrogen beyond.
		This country can be a clean energy superpower.
		My government will help deliver.
unidentified		And that is time for this segment.
		Gentlemen, let us go to our final theme, which is called leading in a crisis.
		Canadians know how to weather a storm.
		Canadians know how to get through a difficult time.
		If, at the end of the day, we end up with the balance of power, Quebec is safer than it could be in any other scenario.
		Now is not a time for weakness.
		Now is the time to take back control.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Canadians are always ready when someone else drops the gloves.
unidentified		Okay, leading in a crisis is a pretty broad theme that allows us to explore many different avenues here.
		So let's get to it.
		Mr. Carney, you get the first question this time.
		We haven't balanced a budget in this country in 17 years, and 10 of those years were under your party.
		You have pledged to get us to a balanced budget in three years.
		Question is, how?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		So let me put this in the context of leading in a crisis, which is in a crisis, you've got to plan for the worst.
		Worst is that the U.S. actually does want to take us over.
		Secondly, you've got to have a plan, a plan to build, and I'll include a fiscal plan, and I will get to that in a second.
		The third thing is you need to respond in a crisis with overwhelming force.
		You need to think big.
		You need to move rapidly.
		The things we've been discussing today are a subset of what we can and should do as a nation, and we can deliver.
		And government can play a role, but its role has to be catalytic.
		And so our approach is that we will slow the rate of spending.
		It's been growing at 9% a year, operational spending, program spending, away from transfers, away from transfers, and 9% a year.
		We'll slow that to 2%.
		We will focus on a small amount of capital spending by the federal government in order to drive enormous private investment up to half a trillion dollars by five years.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Kearney.
		Ukraine surely constitutes a crisis leading in a time of crisis.
		Mr. Polyev, question for you.
		If the United States withholds support from Ukraine going forward, do you believe Canada should commit more to assist?
		I believe we should continue to support Ukraine.
		Our party supported donating missiles that the Canadian military was decommissioning.
		We supported funds and other armaments to back the Ukrainians in the defense of their sovereignty.
		We also need to rebuild our own Canadian military because the Russians want to make incursions into our waters.
		We'll be buying four massive Arctic icebreakers.
		I'll be opening the first Arctic base since the Cold War in Canada, CFB Icalowit.
		We're going to double the size of the Arctic Rangers and fill the vacancies in our Canadian armed forces.
		We need a change to rebuild our military, which has been so disintegrated under the cuts and the mismanagement of the last 10 years.
		But we can have a change because we have the best soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the world, and they will have full backing from my government if you give me the honor of becoming Prime Minister.
		I may come back to that one in the open forum because I'm not sure we got an answer about Ukraine on that one.
		But okay.
		Going on.
		Mr. Blanchard.
		The answer was yes.
		We'll get more details perhaps as we go forward.
		Mr. Blanche, given the U.S. trade war, should any talk of a referendum on Quebec independence be put on pause?
		That one is easy.
		It will happen only after the negotiation is over, and that's a good thing.
		I want to say I support the idea.
		We must help Ukraine, but we also must help the civilians of Gaza, and we must destroy Hamas, which is a terrorist organization.
		You know what?
		I don't want to be the leader of Canada.
		You will understand that.
		I don't want to be Prime Minister.
		But I can afford to be a partner, a responsible partner, a collaborative partner.
		If Quebec is respected in its differences, in its aluminum industry, in lumberwood industry, and culture, and French language, and values of secularity of the state, which is the price to be paid in order to have real equality, then if we are respected, we will be a partner, and then even Canada will be stronger in its negotiation against Donald Trump.
		This is what I am afraid.
		Respect us.
		Mr. Singh, I watched last night's debate.
		You seem very eager to talk about health care, so let's talk a little more health care right now.
		You have made many promises on health care.
		If a province says to you, we'll take your money for health care, but not your conditions on how to spend it, what do you do?
		We've got to negotiate.
		We can't be giving away money without clear conditions.
		We're in a healthcare crisis right now, a crisis that is hurting people across this country.
		People are waiting desperately in line in emergency rooms for hours and hours.
		Seniors are waiting for years and years to get the care that they need for surgeries that would remove pain or help them deal with mobility issues.
		We're in a serious crisis.
		Healthcare workers are burnt out.
		They are overstretched.
		And what we're seeing is more and more privatization, and that is hurting our public universal health care system.
		So we've got to fight back against it.
		We cannot allow our public money to go to a for-profit private clinic lining the pockets of a rich CEO or investors instead of going towards care.
		We need to make sure that we are investing in solutions where care gets to people, not profiting those at the very top.
		And so that's my commitment.
		I'm going to fight to make sure we defend our health care against the threats of American issues and privatization.
		Okay, we now go to open forum debate, and perhaps, Mr. Polyev, you get the first word here.
		This might be a good time to put a little more flesh on the bone of what you think Canada could do for Ukraine if the U.S. backs out.
		Yes, and my answer is that we should continue to support Ukraine.
		We don't need to follow the Americans in everything they do.
		When they're wrong, then we will stand on our own and with other allies.
		And with respect to Ukraine, that of course includes support with intelligence, equipment, armaments, but it also includes defunding Putin.
		Right now, Vladimir Putin has a monopoly on the European energy market because, frankly, the Liberals blocked exports of Canadian natural gas off the Atlantic coast.
		They blocked multiple projects.
		I would rapidly approve those projects on national security grounds so that we can actually ship Canadian natural gas over to Europe, break European dependence on Putin, defund the war, and turn dollars for dictators back into paychecks for our people.
		Mr. Kearney, you wanted to add?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, I want to go to the situation in Ukraine because it's very important.
		We've been a steadfast, Canada has been a steadfast ally, and Canadians have stepped up, welcoming Ukrainians into their homes and supporting them in other ways.
		You know, in my first month as Prime Minister, we joined the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine as the U.S. stepped back.
		So led by France, the United Kingdom, with Ukraine number European nations, Australia, ourselves, New Zealand.
		That's an example of how the new world is going to be, Canada participating in these areas and helping.
		It also means open trade.
		Mr. Polyev voted against free trade agreement with Ukraine.
		It means aid for Ukraine.
		Mr. Polyev wants to cut foreign aid, including for Ukraine, or not.
		He didn't mention support for aid for Ukraine.
		We have to stand by them.
		We have to be there, and this government has been.
unidentified		Mr. Singh, New Democrats absolutely support standing with Ukraine and will continue to do that.
		But I appreciate the opportunity in talking about leadership in crisis, talk about many of the crises we're up against.
		And one of the crises we're up against in our country with the threat of Donald Trump, with the threat of the trade war, and with the privatization and Americanization of our health care system is a health care system.
		And what we have learned today, you know, Mr. Carney mentioned slowing operations spending.
		That's a cut to services.
		He said his plan, he has a plan to balance the operating budget within three years.
		That's going to require massive cuts to spending.
		We calculated that at $43 billion in cuts.
		In fact, Rosemary Barton, when he was on the show on February 16th, he said he would cut spending.
		He said it would be in operations.
		He defined it as transfers in health.
		And finally, longtime Liberal and former House leader Karina Gould said that Mr. Carney's plans would mean massive cuts.
		That's the only way to achieve it.
		So Mr. Carney, you think it is leadership to cut health care at a time when it is in crisis?
		I think it is wrong.
		We can't do that.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		We will not cut transfers for health care.
		We will not cut health care spending full stop.
		But Mr. G. Who do we believe?
unidentified		Mr. Carney today or the one he spoke at on Rosemary Barton's show on February 16th?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I did not believe.
unidentified		The one that repeated again that he would cut spending?
unidentified		Who do we believe?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		If I may, consistently said we'll preserve all transfers to the provinces, including the increases.
		We will preserve all the transfers to individuals.
		I won't detail them all, but they're.
		So we're looking at addressing an operational spend, which is about $150 billion.
		We will address that.
		We will make it more efficient, and we will do it in three years, and we'll balance that budget.
unidentified		Mr. Blanche, I am six minutes behind Mr. Kearney, so I will speak a little bit longer.
		First, I will support any initiative which will bring Canada aligned with Europe and NATO in order to be stronger and facing new threats.
		I believe that 2% won't be enough.
		I'm not more in favor of war than anybody else, but we have responsibilities, and our main ally is removing himself from the stage.
		So we have to step up.
		We have to do our part.
		I want to go somewhere else entirely, however.
		I want to ask Mr. Kearney, if we are speaking about leadership here, if Quebec and Canada were to say you are not being given a majority government.
		There will be more Conservatives than you would like, maybe more New Democrats than you would like, and more people from the bloc than you would like.
		Will you accept, because you don't seem to be very eager about that, to deal with people which basically are more experienced than you are, as legitimate as you are, and would be more representative altogether than you would be being alone in your little kingdom.
		And I want also to propose to you all guys that one week after the election, one week after the election, we all meet, whatever the results, and we start dealing with this crisis together because this is what people, either they are from Alberta or Quebec or wherever, this is what people expect from.
		Mr. Karn, is that something you could get behind?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I look forward to meeting with everyone.
		You're welcome to come, Steve, if you'd like.
		A week after twice.
unidentified		But in all sense, I'm coming.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I come to the core.
		Okay, I'll come to the core.
		But in a crisis, yes, you need a team.
		And you need to bring the country along with you.
		So what I did in the first week was to bring the premiers together, meet with all the Indigenous leaders, and move forward in that context.
		Now the question is who's going to lead out of this?
		Whoever leads out of this, if I may, Mr. Blanche.
		Thank you.
		Whoever's going to lead out of this is going to need to work with all the provinces, work with Labor, work with Indigenous leaders, work with all Canadians to bring them forward in a united front.
		And one of, and one of the things that has happened, which is a credit to those people at home, is that Canadians are coming together.
		And it's our responsibility to meet the strength of Canadian unity.
unidentified		I have one small point to make.
		You will be elected, if you are elected, in a parliament where there are other leaders.
		I don't know if he called you or Mr. Puedeva.
		I don't know if he called you, but before yesterday, you have not spoken to me once, even if I proposed it so many times.
		But you say I speak to provinces' leaders.
		You're not elected in provinces.
		You are in a parliament where people are to make decisions which might not always suit you, but this is democracy.
		I'm going to jump in too much about it.
		I'm going to jump in here because I'm noticing what the clock is saying, and you brought up Gaza earlier, and I think our audience would be interested in hearing your views on the other major international crisis facing the world.
		Before we get that, just to finish up on the health care, I just want to speak to health care workers right now who are deeply worried about the status of our health care system, to Canadians who believe and love our universal public health care system, to patients who are stressed out.
		If you're worried about which Mr. Carney to believe, the one today or the one who spoke on freebie of shows and said he would cut, vote for New Democrats and we will fight to defend our health care.
		I think you're never letting us.
		I would really like to hear what you have to say about this question and we have less than five minutes for it here.
		What role should Canada play in the other major international crisis in this world in the Middle East and the war in Gaza?
		Pier Polyev, would you start us off on that?
		What role can Canada play?
		Well, first of all, we must condemn Hamas and more importantly, the terror sponsors in Tehran who initiated the attacks, the horrific attacks of October 7.
		We need to defeat the terrorists so that all the peoples of the world can live in peace and defend the right of, yes, Palestinians to have their own lives free from the oppression of Hamas dictators and Iranian intervention, while Israel has the ability to live in freedom and peace.
		But I also want to say we need to get back to the Canadian tradition, which is that when people come to this country, they leave foreign conflicts behind.
		The rampaging riots targeting Jewish communities is utterly unacceptable, and it points to the growing chaos that we see on our streets after 10 years of incredibly irresponsible liberal policies of weak borders, of dividing people into groups, of saying one thing to one group and the opposite to another, dividing and conquering.
		We must end that division and unite our people so that everyone feels safe and that when we come here, we put our foreign conflicts behind and we put it in the future.
		That's not enough for us to do that.
		People come from countries from around the world and they care deeply about where they come from and they should be able to do so.
		That's a part of being in our country to have that freedom.
		Your treatment of Palestinians has been frankly disgusting.
		Your treatment of people who provide care and service for people in Gaza has been disgusting.
		On top of that, people in Israel and in Palestine deserve to live in peace and security.
		And Mr. Carney, to date, you've not acknowledged that what's going on in Gaza is now clearly become a genocide.
		It's important to call things out as they are, and you've not done that.
		Mr. Carney.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		We need to work, to go to your question, we need to work with our international partners, maximum pressure, maximum encouragement for an immediate ceasefire.
		That's the first thing.
		Encourage the return of all of the hostages.
		Resumption of humanitarian aid.
		My government put in place $100 million of humanitarian raid, which is ready to go with respect to where this ultimately goes.
		Yes, two-state solution, but it has to be a viable and free Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the state of Israel.
		I will underscore one other thing.
		Mr. Polyev rightly mentioned Iran, the Iranian sponsors in this region.
		We have to be clear-eyed about the fundamental risks of Iran and do everything with our international partners to check it and turn it.
unidentified		Mr. Blanchet.
		If we are to work together, we will have to be consistent.
		The Jewish community in Quebec and Canada is harassed by a very little minority of radical Islamists.
		And we don't do so much.
		The law in Canada says that somebody may invite people to be violent, to propose genocide against another people if they can be hidden behind a religious motivation.
		They are in agreement with that.
		And we say it is a crime to invite people to violence and killing other people.
		And this is what is being done very often in Canada, in Quebec, with the approval of the Criminal Code of Canada.
		And we are saying this has to be changed.
		We have to change what we do before we want people elsewhere to change what they do.
		Last minute in the segment, Mr. Polyev.
		This is about crises and leadership.
		And one crisis we have is in immigration.
		Because of this Liberal government's commitment to a radical policy called the Century Initiative, which seeks to bring our population up to 100 million people, they have allowed massive overcrowding in our communities that has caused housing shortages, job shortages.
		I don't blame immigration for the fault of your government.
		And if I could interrupt you.
		I didn't interrupt you.
		I did not interrupt.
		I did not interrupt you.
		Don't blame immigration.
		Let him finish.
		I do not blame immigrants.
		I blame the Liberal government, which brought this policy on.
		And Mr. Carney wants to continue with the Century Initiative.
		This is crazy.
		We have to get back to normal levels of immigration, get rid of the fraud in the temporary immigration system, and ensure that the people who come here can arrive in numbers that we can house, employ, and care for.
		That's how it always was, and that's how we're going to restore this.
		Thank you, Mr. Polyev.
		That is our time for this segment.
		Those are our five themes, but we are not done yet.
		We are entering the next section of our debate tonight, what we're calling the leader's choice, something a little bit different.
		Each of you will get the chance to ask a question, any question, of any other leader.
		You can then debate the answer, and each one on one will last for three minutes.
		So, Mr. Singh, you have the first option here.
		Who do you want to ask your question of?
		Mr. Carney, go forward.
		Mr. Carney, as chair of Brookville Investments, your company is one of the biggest tax dodgers in Canada.
		As chair, you approved decisions where Brookville Investments bought up affordable homes, kicked out the tenants, and jacked up the rates.
		As Prime Minister, one of the first things you did was a tax cut that helped out mostly millionaires.
		And you have a plan to cut services for people.
		I expect that of Mr. Pierre Polyev and the Conservatives.
		That's very much a Conservative plan.
		But my concern is that doesn't sound like what people want for a Liberal leader.
		So my question to you is, Mr. Carney, whose side are you really on?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Singh.
		I'm on the side of Canadians.
		I'm in this for Canadians.
		I work for Canadians.
		But you're trying to show that, though.
		Well, I have a track record of public service for this country.
		Go back to something Mr. Blanchet referenced earlier, which is have I resolved any crises?
		We're in Quebec.
		If you ask anyone in the finance industry, if you ask anyone in government in Quebec in 2008, they'll know that I resolved the biggest crisis.
		You'll do that.
unidentified		You won't.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Have fun.
		$60 million.
		Mr. Fairness, too.
		This is for these two.
		Yes, I have had a long career in the private sector.
		I'm proud of that career.
		I've always acted with integrity.
		And it brings me with experience that I can apply in a moment of crisis.
unidentified		And you certainly have served the country.
		But the problem is, who have you served?
		You've served to benefit those at the very top.
		You jacked up the price of homes for people living in affordable homes as a strategic decision.
		You dodged taxes.
		And then your decisions as Prime Minister show you're not prioritizing people, but you're prioritizing big business, billionaires.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		So what have we done as a government directly?
		So we've gone directly to workers using all of our proceeds from the tariffs, committing all of them for workers, the workers most effective in the US.
		The employment insurance is a lot of people.
		unlike others who plan to use them to cut taxes.
		We are focused on...
unidentified		The amount of the PI is not high enough, though.
unidentified		You have to accept that.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		There will be additional programs.
		I am fully confident that the next government, whatever government is formed, certainly if I'm in the next government, we will make additional programs for those farmers.
		Well, I can't.
		You couldn't, given that we're in an election cost.
unidentified		You could have increased the government's family.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		May I make a core point here, if I may, which is that when you think about workers here today and people watching at home, particularly younger people, there is an enormous opportunity in the trades, in the skilled trades.
		We are going to build this country in a way that has not been seen before.
		We are literally talking about hundreds of thousands, not jobs, but careers in the trade.
		And that's why we're investing in apprenticeships and mid-career.
unidentified		But I think people are worried, Mr. Carney, if New Democrats aren't there to force Liberals to make sure they remember about people they will forget.
		Gentlemen, that is time.
		Thank you for that.
		Mr. Blanchet, you have the next question.
		To whom would you like to put it?
		Mr. Kearney, you avoided quite, I would say, skillfully, the questions of Mr. Singh.
		But first, let me correct something.
		In 2008, not so much by your decision, 10 billions of dollars were given to car industry in Ontario.
		while 60 millions, not billions of dollars, were lent to lumberwood throughout the whole of Canada.
		I don't believe that's the right way to manage a crisis since you did not recoup the money from the car industry.
		Then, you have been the manager of Brookfield.
		It's supposed to be a green investment fund.
		But we now know that 50% of the investments of Brookfield is in fossil fuel.
		It's not so green.
		You seem to want to support oil and gas industry.
		That's interesting.
		You want to support Prefaba Housing, and it's also in the investments of Brookfield, but not in Canada.
		You want to support nuclear power, smaller reactors, which are more dangerous, by the way.
		And Brookfield has investments in Westinghouse.
		You have in the money of Brookfield in Bermuda and Cayman Island.
		$30 billions of dollars.
		Billions of dollars lost for Canada.
		You are having your taxes being paid by families, workers, elders in Canada and Quebec instead of paying your own taxes.
		So I want to know, will you, before the election, reveal all the details of your assets, as Mr. Singh has done, as Mr. Poiriev has done, and as I have done?
		We have a right under those circumstances.
		Let's let him answer.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, the first thing is I want to say a word about, I'll say a word about Brookfield.
		You know, this is a Canadian success story.
		It is the largest infrastructure investor and developer in the world.
		It is one of the largest, if not the largest, developer of renewable power in the world.
		And who benefits from that?
		That's Canadian pensioners.
		That's Quebec pensioners.
		That is teachers.
		That is firefighters.
		It is a series of people, including individuals, including individuals on this stage, benefit from that.
		Now, always acted with integrity.
		Served the shareholders of Brookfield when I was there.
		I have left that.
		I have followed all the rules well in advance.
		I have followed all the reviews, well in advance.
unidentified		Yes, reveal your assets like we all did.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		And working for the people of Canada.
unidentified		What do you own?
		Why don't you tell Canadians and what you own?
		Mr. Blanche, we're moving on to Mr. Polyev now, who has his opportunity to ask the question of whomever he'd like here, and that will be.
		Mr. Kearney, but if I could begin by starting, by setting the stage, the choice in this election is after a lost liberal decade of rising cost and crime and a falling economy under America's thumb.
		Do we want to elect them to a fourth term?
		Or do we want to change?
		Change so that you can afford food and homes, change that you can be safe on your street and your change so that your paycheck grows faster than your cost of living.
		Change with a new Conservative government.
		Because Mr. Carney has not changed.
		Mr. Kearney, in 2020, it was recorded you began advising Justin Trudeau.
		It's still on the Liberal Party website today that you are Justin Trudeau's economic advisor.
		They might want to update your website on that.
		On June 3rd of 2021, you said that inflation would be a sign of economic progress.
		And you advised governments, including Justin Trudeau's, your Liberal government, to print money, which led to the worst inflation crisis in a generation.
		Now, that means that mothers went to bed with empty fridges and empty bank accounts, worried how they'd feed their kids, that seniors worried they'd be evicted from their homes, that young people believed they'd never be able to own a home in the first place.
		Now, in retrospect, that you look back on the liberal decisions that you advised Justin Trudeau to take, will you look the camera in the eye and apologize to the many people who suffered as a result of the inflationary policies that you advised Justin Trudeau to implement?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		You know, it's I said earlier, but I'm going to say it again.
		I know you want to be running against Justin Trudeau.
		Justin Trudeau isn't here.
unidentified		Are you denying your economic advisor?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I did not provide any of that advice.
		I did not provide any of that advice.
		I'm sorry.
unidentified		Are you accusing your Liberal Party of lying about your role?
unidentified		Because it says today you can go to the Liberal Party website now and it says that you are Justin Trudeau's economic.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		The way you judge someone, in my view, is how they act, what they do when they have responsibility.
		Twice I was a central bank governor.
		And in both cases, in both cases, when I was responsible for inflation, inflation was less than 2%.
		I'll add that when I was here responsible for the Bank of Canada, inflation was less than 2%.
		Our dollar was at parity.
		That is the kind of success that I can deliver for this country coming out of this crisis.
unidentified		And what is at stake here?
		What is at stake that gave us the worst inflation that we have had in my generation?
		Because the public is going to be able to do that.
		Probably brings it back to my bringing back to the crisis which the last 10 years has been about the Liberals.
		The next 10 years should be about you.
		And that's time.
		Mr. Kearney, good news is the next question is yours.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm going to ask myself a question.
		Actually, I'm going to ask a question which has been troubling me.
		And it's troubling me because we are in a very dangerous and divided world.
unidentified		Who is it to?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to ask the question of Mr. Polyev.
		Why not?
		We're in a dangerous and divided world.
		We talked earlier about the challenges in the Middle East, the threats from Iran, threats from Russia, Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
		We have the threats from China, which I raised.
		We have the United States, which is fundamentally changing its security relationships, its commercial relationships.
		We have all this.
		And in the context of that, everyone on the stage, Mr. Blanche, Mr. Singh, myself, we have our top secret security clearance.
		We have our top secret security clearance.
		I got mine within three weeks.
		It wasn't hard.
		But I felt it was important that I had it so I could be in a position to be informed about that dangerous world and take decisions at.
		And Mr. Polyev, it is now 950 days, if my numbers are right, since you've had the opportunity to get your top secret security clearance, and you've refused.
		Why?
unidentified		Well, first of all, I have got my security clearance when I was a minister.
		I got top secret clearance at the time.
		So there's no problem getting that.
		But when the government made this recent offer, they said that if I got the secret security clearance briefings, that I would be gagged under the security law, and I could be prosecuted if I spoke freely about matters of foreign interference.
		Now, given that Canada has experienced Chinese interference by Beijing, the government of China, in two consecutive elections, I needed to do my job to speak freely without fear of prosecution.
		And that was not something I would be allowed to do.
		Even Thomas Mulcair, the former leader of the NDP, said that when he was the leader of the opposition, he never would have accepted the kind of gag order that your government and Mr. Trudeau's government was attempting to impose on me.
		And it's good that I made that decision because it has allowed me to speak freely about things like the case where one of your candidates, sir, actually said that he wanted to send a political opponent to China under a bounty threatening his life or imprisonment, and you refused to get rid of him.
		Now, it might have something to do with the fact that you went to China not long ago to get a quarter billion dollar loan for your company.
		But the reality is you refused to stand up for a Canadian who was being threatened by a foreign government, and I was able to speak freely on that matter because I refused the gag order that the Liberal government attempted to do that.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, there's a couple of interesting things.
		I think people at home have seen a robust debate here, and it's been a robust campaign, and it has not stopped Mr. Blanchet or Mr. Singh at times during his campaign by making challenges with respect to these issues.
		So one can address it.
		I will observe, as someone with the top secret security clearance, that China is not the only country that is accused of foreign interference.
unidentified		And gentlemen, that is to say, that's our time.
		Now, closing statements are still a few minutes down the road, so we have a little bit of time for some quick hit Q ⁇ A's for each of you right now.
		Short questions, 45 seconds, please, on the answers, and we're going to go left to right as I look at you right now.
		Mr. Polyev, you get the first question.
		To the best of my knowledge, you have not offered a hard timeline, as the other parties have, to meet Canada's NATO commitment of 2% spending on defense.
		When would you hit that target?
		My aim will be to 2030.
		That said, when we renegotiate our trade deal with the U.S., I know it's their priority to see us increase our military budget.
		One of the things I will say to the Americans is the more free trade, tariff-free free trade we have, the faster we can rebuild our military in Canada and reassert our sovereignty.
		And we will use that money to have heavy icebreakers in the north, Poseidon aircraft, fighter jets, a new base in the north, double the Arctic Rangers, fill the vacancies in the armed forces, and rebuild the warrior spirit that characterized our military since the birth of our country.
		We will rebuild our forces and we will stand behind our veterans.
		Thank you, Mr. Polyev.
		Mr. Carney, your question, you have cut both the consumer carbon tax and the capital gains tax increase that you inherited from your predecessor.
		Is that an admission that the Liberals made life less affordable for Canadians?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		I think the let me give you the rationale behind both of those changes.
		First, with respect to the consumer carbon tax, in effect, it had become too divisive for Canadians.
		Canadians received rebates.
		On the whole, they received more than the tax actually was.
		But some had represented that it was a tax without a rebate.
		It became divisive.
		It didn't serve its purpose.
		It made a relatively modest contribution to overall climate goals.
		I got rid of it, first act, made Canadians whole.
		Secondly, but with respect to the capital gains tax, it's come up again, I'll be quick.
		This is a fundamental issue.
		We need to build this country.
		Builders, innovators, entrepreneurs need to be rewarded.
		That's why I brought it back.
unidentified		And that's time.
		Thank you.
		Mr. Singh, would you change the existing cap on immigration?
		I've said that the level of immigration, first of all, we need immigration.
		It's fundamentally important to our country.
		And we speak to any small business owner.
		You speak to people here in Quebec.
		You speak to farmers.
		It's fundamentally important.
		A couple of things, though, we know we need to be able to set the amount of folks that we welcome to our country at a level that it meets our needs.
		So I would ensure that we've got an expert panel that makes that determination based on our economic needs.
		We also know that we should be very clear that the lack of investment from Liberals and Conservatives resulted in the fact that we have a shortage in housing.
		That's something that we've got to fix.
		I should also point out that if you are worried about the cuts being proposed by Liberals and Conservatives, vote for New Democrats.
		We'll fight back to protect Canadians and make sure that we've got the right immigration levels.
		Thank you, Mr. Singh.
		That's time.
		Mr. Blanche, Quebec, I believe, is now the only province with a carbon tax.
		Do you think that's fair?
		It's not entirely true.
		It's not a tax.
		What Quebec has is a system by which we invite big emission companies, I don't know how to translate that, to reduce their emissions.
		If they do not, then they have to pay.
		It goes into a fund which is invested then in reducing emissions.
		Our partner is California, which makes this a huge deal about reducing emissions.
		This is what we do.
		This is to be compared to what Europe does.
		And by the way, Europe would impose tariffs on Canadian oil if it ever got there.
		We're quite proud of that.
		And we have to be responsible because this is much less expensive than moving nothing.
		That's time.
		We're going to do another set of quick hits here, left to right again.
		And 30 seconds this time.
		Mr. Polyev, you've previously promised to defund the CBC as one of your very first acts as Prime Minister.
		Is that still the plan?
		Yes, CBC will continue to operate as a self-funded Canadian-owned and controlled non-for-profit that raises money like other media organizations through sponsorships, subscriptions, advertising, licensing fees, and countless other things that will ensure Canadians who still want to listen and view its content will be able to do so.
		And at the same time, we'll allow freedom of the press so that everybody has their voice heard and they can make their own decisions.
		Thank you.
		Mr. Carney, the next question to you, 30 seconds.
		Would you remove some of Canada's legal tax avoidance loopholes that companies that you have worked for have used?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		Look, I think that what we need to do is undertake a comprehensive review of our corporate tax system and do that on the basis of the right principles.
		We've got to have fairness, transparency, sustainability, and competitiveness.
		So we need a tax system, a corporate tax system, including being part of an international minimum corporate tax through the OECD.
unidentified		And that is time.
		Mr. Singh, the question for you is, if you hold the balance of power after this election is over, what would your price be to support another party?
		We've laid out our priorities.
		We want to make sure we bring down the cost of groceries, build homes that people can afford.
		I can also tell you that we would defend CBC, unlike Mr. Polyev, who wants to cut it, and we would close tax loopholes and offshore tax havens, even though Mr. Carney didn't respond to that.
		And selling stocks and shares to make profits and then having less taxes on that is not hard work.
		And so those aren't the job creators.
		The people who are job creators are the hardworking men and women that contribute to our economy.
		Thank you, Mr. Singh.
		Mr. Blaucher, kind of the same question.
		If you hold the balance of power in the next minority parliament, if it is that, what would be the price of your support?
		Respect for Quebec.
		That's quite easy.
		I don't want to go against what Canada wants to do for itself, but I don't want Canada to impose an economic vision or a multiculturalist vision on Quebec, which is different in terms of language and values and secularity and equality between people.
		So I want to be a partner, and if Quebec is respected, Canada has nothing to fear from the bloc because we vote for what is good for Quebec.
		It only has to be good for Quebec.
		Thank you, Mr. Blancher.
		Now, we have one last question for each of you.
		We'll go right to left this time as I look at you.
		Bit of an off-beat question.
		Mr. Blancher, what is your biggest regret during this campaign?
		That's a very good question.
		I'm not very fond of regrets, I would say, but we should have started sooner to see that we had to create the environment for a deal in which Quebec and Canada would be one bigger than the other, but partners to be stronger in front of Mr. Trump and showing that maybe nobody here is the partner to let go alone without being surveyed or controlled or supervised by a Quebec voice.
		Thank you, Mr. Blancher.
		Same question, Mr. Singh, your biggest regret of this campaign.
		Not being able to meet as many people as I would love to have.
		It's a short campaign, and so I can't get to as many communities as I wanted to.
		I think one of the honors of my job is to be able to meet people and to hear their stories and then to take their stories and concerns and bring them to Ottawa and to fight for those people.
		And so I want you to know, even though I haven't made it to your community, I'm going to fight like hell to make sure that you're represented, that we never let any government cut our health care, that we defend the values that we care so deeply about.
		We make my life more affordable.
		That's my commitment to you.
		Even if I didn't get to see you, that's my commitment.
		Thank you, Mr. Singh.
		Mr. Carney, same question.
		Biggest regret of the campaign?
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		To be honest, it's the same answer.
		This is an astonishing country.
		It is an amazing country.
		And the opportunity and the responsibility that comes with it of being with Canadians, hearing their stories, their challenges, drawing strength and ideas from them, and working to be part of the solution is the greatest honor of my life.
		But the regret is that it is also a big country, and it is a short period of time.
unidentified		Mr. Polyev, last word to you.
		I actually agree with these two gentlemen.
		I had a rule that at all my rallies, even when they're really big, I would stand in front of a flag and greet every single person and hear their stories and learn their struggles.
		And that was always touching to me that they would put their faith in me or in any of us.
		But we've been in such a rush because we have to get off to the next event, so we haven't been able to stop and do that.
		And I want you to know out there, I haven't forgotten about you.
		Thank you.
		Thank you, Mr. Polyev.
		It is time now for closing statements.
		And prior to the debate, you drew lots as to which order we would go in.
		And Mr. Singh, you get the first word on a closing statement.
		Certainly, thank you.
		Because you voted for New Democrats, we were able to build this country that we love.
		Universal health care and pensions because you voted for us.
		Because you voted for New Democrats, we were able to fight to bring in dental care, pharmacare, and childcare because you voted for us, because you supported us.
		You have the power with your vote to send more New Democrats to Ottawa to continue that fight, to make sure that no government cuts the things that we hold dear, like our health care, to ensure that we can do everything possible to make life more affordable by making it more affordable to buy your groceries and to get a home.
		I'm asking for your support in this election so that I can continue to fight to defend the things that make Canada Canada, the things that we hold dear, the things that make us proud to be Canadian.
		Thank you, Mr. Singh.
		Mr. Cardi.
mark carney ▲ ● ▼		We are facing the biggest crisis of our lifetimes.
		Donald Trump is trying to fundamentally change the world economy, the trading system.
		But really what he's trying to do to Canada, he's trying to break us so the U.S. can own us.
		They want our land.
		They want our resources.
		They want our water.
		They want our country.
		We're all going to stand up against Donald Trump.
		I'm ready.
		I've managed crises over the years.
		I've built strong economies.
		We will fight back with counter tariffs.
		We will protect our workers and those businesses, and we will build the strongest economy.
		We will build Canada strong.
		I'm asking for your support, the honor of doing so.
		Thank you.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Carney.
		Mr. Blanchet.
		For 260 years and a little bit more, Les Français, 20 Canadien, 20 Canadien Français, 20 Québecois, you have tried to have them become Canadians like all Canadians.
		But to no avail, we are different.
		So let's be economic partners.
		Let's have a voice chosen by and for Quebecers and ally for Canadians as equals in front of Mr. Trump.
		Monsieur Poeliev.
		Only in Canada could someone start where I began and get to this stage.
		I was born to a single mother and adopted by school teachers who raised me to believe in the incredible Canadian promise that anyone who worked hard could do anything.
		That promise feels broken today.
		Many of you worried about paying your bills, feeding your families, or ever even owning a home.
		You're worried your kids are in danger.
		But I'm here to say it doesn't have to be this way.
		With change, we can restore the Canadian promise so that hard work gets you a beautiful house on a safe street under a proud flag.
		We can do it with hope for a change.
		Gentlemen, thank you for a very spirited debate tonight.
		Two quick points before we go.
		Number one, one of you celebrated your 60th birthday yesterday on this stage.
		Yves-François Blanché, Bonani Verser.
		Secondly, you'll notice we didn't have to change the time of this debate because the Leafs already clinched the Atlantic Division title, and therefore we didn't need to move the debate to accommodate a hockey game.
		I'm getting back at my colleague who was in this position last night.
		And okay, go habs go.
		That's fine.
		With that, we're done.
		Thank you, leaders, for being here tonight.
		We are just 11 days from Election Day, April 28th.
		But there are many ways that you can cast your ballots starting tomorrow at advanced polls.
		If you intend to vote by mail, that deadline is April 22nd.
		Make sure to check your voter card for details or contact Elections Canada.
		This is your democratic right, and we hope you use it.
		Thank you so much for being with us tonight.
		I'm Steve Pakin.
		Good night from Montreal.
		Thank you.
		A Reuters article, Dateline Ottawa, Canada.
		Prime Minister Mark Carney faced off with his chief rival for the first time during Canada's election campaign on Wednesday in a French-language debate that could help determine who wins the April 28th vote and then deals with U.S. tariffs.
		And joining us now from Ottawa is the reporter on that story, David Jungren, Reuters Canadian correspondent.
		Thanks so much for being with us.
		How much are tariffs and relations with the U.S. the focus of this election?
		Oh, 100%.
		This is a very unusual election in Canada.
		Votes here are normally dominated by domestic topics, healthcare, finances, security.
		But this election, it's been 100% Donald Trump and tariffs.
		It's remarkable.
		So how would each party handle the tariff issue?
		Well, it's a race between two parties, the ruling Liberal Party of Mark Kearney and the largest opposition party, the Conservatives.
		There is quite a bit of difference.
		So the Liberals have imposed counter tariffs on about $60 billion worth of imports from the states, and they say that those tariffs will stay in place until the Americans drop fares.
		Now, the Conservatives are calling for a truce.
		The Conservatives want both countries to drop their tariffs at the same time so that they can have talks on how to kind of restructure future economic ties.
		What do the polls say about the likely election outcome at this point?
		The polls right now have the Liberals slightly ahead, but that's a bit misleading because traditionally Liberal support is concentrated in areas of the country where there are a lot of legislators, whereas Conservative support is focused in parts of the country where there are not that many parliamentary constituencies.
		So although the polls show the Liberals slightly ahead by about three or four percentage points, and if that is the result on Election Day, the Liberals then win a comfortable majority.
		An absolute majority.
		They won't have to deal with a minority government.
		That's right.
		When the election started, the Liberals only had a minority government.
		And in the Canadian system, that means you have to kind of strike all sorts of deals with various opposition parties.
		And it just makes the administration much less stable.
		Whereas if you get a majority in the Canadian system, you can do an awful lot.
		The Liberals have been in power for almost a decade, but now this issue of tariffs comes along.
		Does that change the dynamic?
		Is it easier, tougher to win the next election?
		It makes it much easier.
	I mean, the Liberals have been in power almost 10 years, which in the Canadian system is about the lifespan of a government.
	Very few governments in Canada last more than 10 years because people just get fed up.
	So before Donald Trump came to power and began making threats against Canada, the Liberals were in real trouble.
	The polls showed they were 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives.
	And yet, in a matter of just a few weeks, the Liberals have rebounded and are now leading the Conservatives.
	And this is something that at the start of the year, no one could possibly have predicted, because at that point, the Liberals were heading for a really major shellacking.
	There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
	In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
	Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to C-SPAN.org slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN radio.
	Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
	Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
	And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day.
	Catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
	Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio, anytime, anywhere.

▲