Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 16, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:05:56

ELECTIONS CANADA! Live French Debate with Translation & Commentary - Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Tonight, who will score points?
	Who will convince you?
	Who will reassure you?
	Who will inspire you?
	Welcome to the Federal Leaders Debate 2025.
	I don't even get to translate it in real time.
	I want to hear what they actually have to say, not that I don't trust.
	This election is the most important of our lives.
	We will never be an American state.
	Ever. The U.S. threat is huge, but there are other issues at stake.
	We choose Quebec.
	Donald Trump has attacked our country.
	We have to defend our workers.
	Oh, this is going to be fun.
	Live from Maison Radio Canada in Montreal.
	This is the leaders' debate.
	Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
	How do we want this?
	Welcome to the French leaders debate.
	We are joined by Mark Carney, leader of the Liberal Party.
	Boo! Good evening to all four of you.
	Thank you for being here.
	Ladies and gentlemen, it's what, 6pm?
	And a few seconds.
	No, it's 6pm now.
	This important event has been moved forward to give as many people as possible the opportunity to tune in without missing a decisive moment for another one of our passions, hockey.
	Oh, they rescheduled it because of hockey?
	I'll go off script here for a few seconds and say that the Montreal Canadiens, you'd better win.
	I also would like to say that the leaders' invitations were managed by the Leaders' Debates Commission, and the podium places on the set were designated at random.
	But the questions, subjects, and editorial choices are ours.
	I'll be managing speaking time fairly.
	Within a fair minute, there are five themes tonight.
	Obviously, the trade war with the United States, the cost of living, energy and climate, immigration and foreign affairs, and finally, identity and sovereignty.
	And I'll also have a few rapid-fire questions at the end of the debate.
	This debate is your debate this evening.
	You will be free to speak as much as possible.
	The only rule that I ask of you is not to speak at the same time.
	If you start talking over one another, I'll ask Pascal, our sound engineer, to turn off your mics.
	So let the debate begin, or I was going to say good game.
	So we'll move on to our first opening question.
	Does everybody like this format?
	I will not translate, I'll just do this.
	This election, according to many, has been hijacked by Trump.
	So to assert...
	Our sovereignty early in this debate, I'll ask you to name two things you'd put forward, concrete things that will change the lives of Canadians, but that have nothing to do with the United States.
	45 seconds, Mr. Carney, you're first.
	First of all, thank you very much, Mr. Roy.
	And I'd like to thank everyone watching at home for joining us tonight.
	And I'd like to thank the other leaders for your service to Canada.
	Two things.
	That don't include Mr. Trump.
	First of all, we need to double the rhythm of construction of new homes here in Canada.
	Ten years in power.
	That's absolutely fundamental.
	And the second thing, we need to promote and strengthen our cultural institutions in Canada.
	Justin Trudeau said that Canada has no core identity.
	Two things that you would promise Canadians to change their lives that have nothing to do with the United States.
	Thank you Mr. Roy and thanks to my colleagues for being here today.
	Clearly life is no longer affordable.
	The promise of an affordable life is broken.
	I have a plan.
	To make life more affordable by cutting taxes by 15%, that's one thing that will reward work for the middle class and for seniors who've already worked.
	Second thing...
	We're going to scrap the GST on new houses, and we're going to incentivize cities to reduce their taxes too, so that our young people can save up to $100,000 on a new home and restore the promise of Canada.
	Thank you, Mr. Blanchet.
	I would like to come back to something that I do all year long.
	First of all, thank you for having welcomed us.
	Why is he British?
	I've been waiting for this moment for a long time.
	I'd like to insist on two things for Quebec that I was talking about before the Trump crisis.
	Quebec's right to have a different and open economy, open to the world, based on its own natural resources, on its own attachment to a green economy, but also Quebec's right to be different, to have a different language, to have a different culture, to have different values,
	to have different immigration models that need to succeed.
	Are elements that should always have been mentioned, but that have a particularly new sense with this new crisis.
	Great. Mr. Singh, 45 seconds.
	Two things that have nothing to do with the Americans.
	Thank you for the question.
	Good evening, everybody.
	First, I'd like to talk a little bit about values.
	What are the values that underpin the answer to this question?
	Canadians and Quebecers, like taking care of one another.
	We come together.
	That is what we believe in.
	That is a basic value for us.
	And this value is embodied in our public health care system, which has nothing to do with the US.
	And we want our health care system to be nothing like the American one.
	We will expand pharmacare so that everyone can access the medications they need.
	And I also want to talk about dental care.
	I also want to expand that program, which owes itself to us.
	Thank you.
	I'd like to reassure you, Mr. Singh.
	I think you were disappointed.
	We are going to talk about health as well, and I'll ask questions about that later.
	First theme, therefore, obviously, the trade war.
	Trump is going to be tough.
	We don't know what's in store with him.
	I don't think any solution is going to be possible.
	We always thought they were our ally.
	It doesn't make sense.
	Look at this propaganda that you're getting.
	You can't reason with him.
	The government will have to stand firm.
	Stay firm.
	We have to put him in his place.
	Otherwise, he'll destroy us totally.
	Destroy us totally.
	The answer should be pragmatic.
	It would be good to pause some of our services to the US.
	They need us.
	An eye for an eye.
	No messing around.
	Get us out of this mess.
	We need a leader who can make decisions to destabilize Trump and make him respect Canada.
	What does he plan to do with the new president of the United States?
	Guerre commercial means commercial war.
	What do you plan to do with this president?
	That is the elephant in the room.
	So for your information, there are 1,073 days left in Donald Trump's term.
	Why do you think that you are the best person here tonight to negotiate with Mr. Trump?
	Mr. Poliev, 35 seconds.
	First of all, we will never be an American state.
	We will remain sovereign.
	You're going to hear all four of these idiots saying the same thing.
	On my first day as Prime Minister, I will restart negotiations to accelerate a deal that will put an end to the tariffs and protect our sovereignty.
	We can't control Trump, but at the same time, we have to control what we can control.
	We need to reverse liberal economic policies that have weakened our country.
	We need to unleash our resources, cut taxes and bring jobs back home so that we can face Trump from a perspective.
	This is not enough time for anybody to answer a bloody question.
	All right.
	Well, first of all, in a crisis, you have to plan for the worst possible situation and you have
	to have a plan, a plan to build a strong economy here in Canada.
	And we need to react with strength.
	And those are the elements that will allow us to succeed with Mr. Trump.
	He respects strength.
	He respects people who understand how the world works and who understand how the private sector works.
	And
	Canada needs to create other options, new, reliable partnerships around the world.
	And that's what I'll do.
	Thank you, Mr. Carney.
	Mr. Blanchet.
	This is all vapid rubbish.
	Trump? Well...
	Hang from his own noose because their economy is dependent on ours.
	But there will be a lot of harm done to Canada, to Europe, to Mexico before then.
	We have to realise that our joint GDP is bigger than the States.
	Our population is bigger than the States.
	And so...
	Retaliation is going to hurt the states, but we have to negotiate in a rational way and we shouldn't fall to fear and we shouldn't spin fear.
	Nobody has said anything thus far.
	It's all about priorities.
	For me, now is the time to invest, not cut.
	It is the time to protect what we hold dear, our farmers, our culture, the French language.
	These things should not be sacrificed.
	It is time to defend who we are, what our values are, and we believe in helping one another.
	This is the second time he's said that.
	Drug meat is the biggest idiot on the planet.
	We will not let it be Americanized.
	That is crucial.
	We must defend who we are.
	So, open debate to begin now for about 15 minutes.
	Mr. Poiliev, you have called Carney a political grifter, a globalist banker who's deconnected from reality.
	And Mr. Carney, you've said Pierre Poiliev is a career politician who knows nothing about how the real world works.
	So I ask you the question, which of you...
	I am.
	Because I'm gonna put Canada first.
	I will never compromise Canada's interests and I will control what we can control here.
	Obviously, no one will be able to control the decision.
	How about fix the problems of the Liberals?
	He hasn't talked about the liberals'destruction once yet.
	Mr. Paulyev.
	By overturning liberal economic policies that have weakened our country and made us more dependent on the Americans.
	The issue is, Mr. Paulyev.
	if
	You would make Canada more like the United States.
	You would Americanize our healthcare system, privatize it.
	Everyone knows that's what conservatives say.
	Mr. Carney, you said that you're better?
	All right.
	First of all, I know how to negotiate.
	And I agree with Mr. Singh.
	We need to start by...
	The French language, Quebec's culture, and supply management will never be on the table.
	Our resources, that's the first thing.
	Second, in terms of Mr. Blanchet's point, the opportunities that we have with the...
	European Union are there.
	And I've already started building new relationships with the European Union.
	Yeah, the European Soviet Union.
	That's because you're a globalist.
	The president of the European Commission.
	There's a lot to unpack in there, let's be honest.
	Perhaps it's right.
	You say that you're an expert in managing a crisis, but...
	It's a crisis of your own making.
	Well, perhaps negotiating with tax havens, but when it comes to trade agreements...
	There you go.
	We apparently have to believe you with no political experience, and so I find this kind of funny because people say we have to unite and work together.
	On the one hand, you have never spoken to me before this evening.
	Huh, I like this guy already.
	You're not trying to figure out how to collaborate between equals, Quebec, Canada, Mexico, European partners.
	You're trying to score divisive points that only serves the United States of America.
	All right.
	He moved his companies to the U.S. How about say that?
	I've been prime minister for a month.
	You've been advising the Prime Minister for five years.
	...signed an agreement with the premiers of all the provinces, the premier of Quebec and the premiers of all the provinces and territories concerning free trade within Canada.
	It's also an agreement that deals with trade corridors.
	That's an example.
	That's an example.
	You haven't sat with any premiers.
	You've sat with MPs.
	Why is Yves Blanchet doing Paulier's work here?
	The problem, Mr. Carney, is that your party has been in power for 10 years.
	There you go.
	And in that time...
	You've done nothing but destroy Canada.
	It's not meetings that are going to change things.
	It's your policies that have blocked resources.
	C-69, which blocks not just pipelines, but also dams, mines, and liquid national gas exploration.
	We have a deal with Europe, a trade deal.
	The Conservatives negotiated it.
	But liberal legislation has prevented development and you continue to support those laws.
	Those laws need to be repealed and replaced with laws that will unleash our resources and allow us to export abroad and allow us to become truly
	We'll talk about that later.
	...sovereign and energy sovereignty as well.
	Mr Carney, unfortunately, your priority is, well, you had time to meet with the king, but you did not increase the amount of money people receive when they lose their jobs due to the trade war.
	They lost their jobs before the trade war.
	Get maybe half of their salary.
	For people who have already lost their jobs, that is not enough.
	It won't cover the bills.
	It won't cover their rent costs.
	That shows your priorities.
	For me, workers are number one.
	We need a system to support our workers.
	By the way, Carney thought he was going to get on Jagmeet's side by flattering him.
	Jagmeet just comes back and stabs everyone in the back.
	We need to fight in a trade war.
	We need to fight with counter-tariffs.
	And all the money collected from our counter-tariffs will go directly to workers and the businesses that are the most affected by this trade war.
	They won't be used for tax cuts the way that Mr. Poiliev is going to do.
	You always want to increase them.
	You're a liberal.
	We want to cut taxes.
	I just started as Prime Minister for a fourth liberal term.
	I've just started.
	You were Justin Trudeau's economic advisor.
	Have you forgotten that?
	Clip it!
	There you go, clip that!
	They have already done it in the past.
	The first, your first step, was to reduce taxes for the millionaires.
	Pierre Polyev would do the same thing.
	That's not true.
	You're not thinking of regular people.
	We've cut the consumer carbon tax.
	That's what we did.
	You've cut your consumer carbon tax, the one that your stupid Liberal Party imposed.
	...for several days that it would be better to have a minority government.
	You said it clearly.
	With Trump, can Canadians not want a majority government that's stronger?
	I don't know where that reasoning comes.
	A minority government would be weaker than a majority government.
	Go tell that to the Germans, who have only governed through coalitions recently.
	Many countries have coalitions, and if that is the population of the people, then great.
	At this point, it's possible that Canadians and Quebecers, perhaps, Choose to trust in someone who has the least experience in politics.
	Quebec has a different economy, different interests, different everything.
	We want a parliament where our economic difference is taken into account.
	Let's talk a little bit about minority governments.
	The whole point of a minority government is to help people, to make a difference in people's lives.
	But, honestly, Mr. Blanchet, unfortunately, in the last minority government, you showed that you were as useless as the monarchy is.
	You did nothing for people.
	What is worse, you voted against measures that would help Quebecers.
	Dental care.
	Pharma care.
	These are measures that have helped hundreds of thousands of Quebecers.
	Quebec jurisdiction, dental care, health care, pharma care, the money that we send to Ottawa.
	Ottawa does not have the expertise or the jurisdiction.
	Quebec does.
	Please let me finish one sentence.
	Please wrap it up.
	When we want to be effective, we give the money to the experts, those who have the legal jurisdiction, to spend the money.
	And that is Quebec in this case.
	The NDP gave $2 billion to an insurance company.
	Everything's going fine until now, but Mr. Carney, in terms of the minority government...
	Mr. Roy, we are in a crisis.
	The most serious crisis of our lives.
	We need to react with resounding, overwhelming strength.
	Yes, we need to cut a few taxes.
	Yes, we need to cut bureaucracy.
	But the government needs to act in a time of crisis.
	So we need to have a government ready to act.
	But when you were Justin Trudeau's economic advisor, you weakened our economy.
	We need economic sovereignty.
	And that means bringing back production to Canada.
	And I would reverse liberal policies around development.
	I would expedite construction permits.
	We would have pre-approved permits.
	I would also make sure that we could send our energy to Europe to break Europeans' dependence on Putin and to break our dependence on the U.S. We have a segment on energy and pipelines,
	so we'll come back to that later.
	There are people who are watching us who are concerned.
	There will be negotiations.
	Well, you'll all say supply management here, but I'd like to say that Canada gave up market shares during the last three trade deal negotiations.
	We're talking about more than $450 million a year in losses for Canadian farmers.
	So what is something you wouldn't concede in a negotiation?
	I will defend supply management.
	I will defend the French language.
	I will defend our healthcare system.
	I will defend our decisions and our laws.
	We will always be sovereign.
	And the way we're going to restore that sovereignty, Canadian sovereignty, is by making our economy stronger.
	We need to cut.
	Red tape by 25% for businesses.
	We need to reduce development charges, taxes on housing.
	We need to support labor and energy and domestic production.
	That's how we can be more sovereign in the face of the U.S. It's nice to say supply management, but we've said it three times and it hasn't been done.
	Well, this is the first time.
	That I will be at the table if I'm elected as prime minister.
	I've said a number of times, and since the beginning of my campaign in Mauricie, we'll never touch supply management.
	We won't put Quebec culture or the French language on the table.
	And I think we all agree on that point.
	And that's important.
	We have to be very clear.
	From the beginning when talking to the Americans.
	Be very clear.
	We don't agree on it is that...
	Pierre Polyev would cut our health care system.
	You said it.
	Everyone knows it.
	You said that you want to cut.
	You would cut dental care.
	Pharmacare. You called them bad ideas.
	And unfortunately...
	Mr. Carney's plan to budget the operating budget in three years would lead to $43 billion worth of cuts.
	We'll talk about that in the next segment.
	Cost of living.
	We'll talk about tax cuts later and choices.
	And we will underscore that none of you has tabled a costed plan.
	These are just promises.
	We have tabled a program, first of all.
	Second of all, we are not the ones who decide what's on the table.
	If Mr. Trump says, I want to talk about this, no one will be able to stop him from at least talking about it.
	We've never sacrificed the
	principle of supply management.
	So it's empty words.
	Little bits have been sacrificed every single time, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars every single time.
	All Mr. Trump wants is--Safe borders.
	Wave of Wisconsin milk.
	With hormones, with no protection against antibiotics.
	What the hell is he talking about?
	We will bring back an act that everyone approved.
	The Liberals before Carney approved it.
	Everyone had approved it.
	But then there were certain intrigues with unelected senators.
	There's a number of unelected members of parliament that seem to be making decisions.
	This format is very annoying.
	Are these translations even any good?
	They're pretty good.
	I was listening to the French side.
	They're pretty good.
	My point is that we need to invest in Canada.
	Our plan, which will be unveiled this weekend, will catalyze $500 billion dollars.
	He always repeats things twice.
	It's amazing.
	And that will be important in our negotiations with Mr. Trump.
	I'd like us to listen to a worker together from Stellantis.
	For him, this crisis with the U.S. is very clear.
	He's just lost his job.
	I was laid off by Stellantis because of the trade war with the U.S. How will your government stop, Mr. Trump, from attacking our industries one by one?
	And how will you protect our jobs?
	What a bunch of propaganda this is.
	State-funded propaganda.
	Concrete measures.
	How will you help workers?
	You all have different proposals.
	First of all, I already announced a fund to help companies.
	Keep jobs, to keep workers in their jobs, because the priority of workers is to keep working.
	Secondly, there will be EI to protect people who have fallen on rough times.
	I will be there for people who've lost their jobs.
	At the same time, we need to stimulate investment to strengthen our economy and to encourage new companies.
	We need to unleash our natural resources and we need to create more jobs in resource industries.
	We also want to create more jobs for tradespeople at a time when they need work to build new houses.
	The only problem is you don't hear the inflection in their voice or their voice.
	If a business wants to sell cars in Canada, they should be required to have a factory in Canada, a presence in Canada, and I would...
	Put this in a law.
	We are a major market.
	If you want to sell jobs here, you should create jobs here.
	And let me add, the first thing Mr Paulyev said in 2022 when he became Conservative leader is that he would cut EI contributions.
	So it is not credible that he would increase support to people when he talked about eliminating contributions.
	For workers, you've said you want to go back to a pandemic-style wage subsidy.
	The principle of that.
	We said that even before the campaign.
	To paraphrase Mr. Poilier, EI is fairly broken.
	People have difficulty accessing it, and I disagree with Mr. Carney's suggestion to say that money will be invested in training.
	You've lost your job, but we're going to train you, and you're going to have another kick at a can at the age of 55. Not a good idea.
	The idea of the wage subsidy was to allow the worker to have a link.
	To their job by giving them a subsidy so that the employer, should they want to, could rehire them, someone who had the skill to do the job.
	So there would be a transitional period where there could be temporary job losses, like for the case we've just heard.
	Well, first of all, three things.
	All the money from our counter tariffs will go directly to workers.
	Second, we have a strategic fund for manufacturing in Canada, specifically for the auto sector.
	And third, our counter-tariff system for the automotive sector contains an incentive of $7 billion for the automakers to keep production and workers here in Canada.
	That's very important.
	But the reason that we've done all of this is so that we can have strong positions to negotiate with Trump.
	And that's why, as long as there are tariffs, we will scrap the GST on cars and trucks that are mainly built here in Canada.
	I think the tariff is a good idea.
	What allows companies to buy and sell more, then yes, I do agree with that approach.
	70%?
	Mr. Pauly, have copied our idea.
	We announced the GST lifting for Canadian made cries before him.
	Now, there are a lot of things that are in all of your platforms, so we'll come back to that.
	Now, 70% of Canadians say that they're buying fewer American products.
	It's a big number.
	You leaders, could you please name me one Made in USA product that you no longer buy?
	Listen to this propaganda.
	I buy my own strawberries.
	So you don't buy strawberries anymore?
	I buy Quebec strawberries and I do my own shopping, by the way.
	What products have you not bought, Mr. Carney?
	No more wine, no more alcohol, no more American alcohol.
	He moved his company to America.
	I do my own shopping.
	Say it, Pierre.
	And I cook at home.
	Lots of products.
	Jagmeet Singh drives a BMW.
	He owns fancy watches, not made in Canada.
	With apples, other fruit, strawberries.
	How the hell did this guy get a place on the stage?
	Everyone is eating a lot of strawberries these days.
	Say it, Pierre.
	He moved his company to America.
	I keep my employees in Canada.
	I bring it up because I do my own grocery shopping, which Carney does not.
	This is a delicious conversation.
	It's beef in my case.
	I buy Canadian beef.
	It's the best beef in the world.
	But I never buy American strawberries either.
	It's like a circle jerk of anti-American nonsense.
	All right.
	It's very beautiful to see.
	Our next theme is the cost of living.
	You know what Pierre should have said?
	I keep my employees in Canada.
	But we all have to love each other.
	We can manage our money.
	We're having a hard time here.
	I hope they'll be able to balance the budget and maintain the same quality of services.
	Canadian beef is very good.
	Lower taxes.
	Beef is good.
	I earn a good salary, but it's hard to pay for groceries, for childcare, for our...
	Kid? For everything.
	Say it's because of the Trump Tower.
	Education is expensive.
	Prices keep going up.
	The middle class is hurting.
	And for the poor, it's worse.
	We should have a Trump counter upstream.
	We're getting poorer.
	I feel like no one really listens to young people on housing or the cost of living.
	So you should vote liberal.
	Vote liberal again, you idiot.
	What does the future hold for us young people?
	Well, if you vote liberal, this time around they'll get it.
	What does the future hold for young people?
	I'll give you a few figures here, very briefly.
	I'm sure this won't come as a surprise, but in Montreal, housing prices have more than doubled over 10 years.
	What do you not buy from America?
	And what do you not buy from China?
	$300,000 to $671,000.
	Remarkable growth in Toronto and Vancouver as well.
	So my question, and you'll have 35 seconds, first of all, how can we improve access to housing, for example, for this young woman that we just heard from?
	Oh, you should let in another 500,000 immigrants.
	It's through the starting capital and then other GST based policy.
	There needs to be access to capital for a down payment.
	My children can't pay for a house.
	A lot of them have jobs, good jobs.
	It's essential that we give them a little boost.
	How about you just not flood the country with immigrants?
	And it's not during a crisis and in cutting budgets that we will be able to do so.
	We need to reduce speculation on house prices.
	We need to invest in affordable housing, social housing, student housing.
	Social housing?
	That's called government-run ghettos.
	Give a good price and reduce pressure.
	These people are idiots.
	Okay, Blanchet, now I no longer like you.
	You're an idiot.
	Say immigrants.
	Say the rampant immigration policy that has destroyed Canadians' ability to own home.
	After a decade of liberal inflation, liberal policies have increased the cost of living the most in 40 years.
	I will cut your taxes for the average worker by 15%.
	We will scrap the GST on new homes and we will incentivize municipalities to speed up permits and construction so that young people can once again buy a home and restore the dream of home ownership in order to fix this crisis of your own making.
	We need to make sure that Canadians have more money in their pockets and they need to have more Canada in their pockets.
	What the hell does that mean?
	That means a tax cut for the middle class.
	Your tax cut?
	On your taxes?
	And our plan is almost $800 per family.
	Cut the GST on first homes and increase competition.
	And in Canada, we have dental care.
	What the hell is he talking about?
	Pharma care.
	And daycares, we need to protect that, and we need to double new housing construction in Canada.
	This is verbal diarrhea.
	This is Kamal Harris-esque verbal diarrhea.
	I've got to go see what he actually said in French, because that makes no sense.
	When I talk to people and the cost of living comes up, there are two main topics.
	First, grocery costs.
	Second, housing costs for groceries.
	Major grocery giants are gouging us.
	We saw this with the price of bread, the price of meat.
	They drive prices up, and they are gouging the Canadian public.
	We would put price caps on essential groceries.
	We would also stop corporate landlords from buying up affordable housing.
	Nobody's mentioned immigration.
	That's not the problem.
	Thank you very much, Mr. Singh.
	245,000 housing units were built in 2024.
	You've all promised to massively accelerate the pace of that construction.
	The liberals have said 500,000, the NDP 600,000.
	Mr. Sting, you're going to start this part of the open debate.
	How does this grow on trees?
	We have a clear plan for how to make this happen.
	First, we would not sell off our federal land.
	We would keep it and we would build affordable housing on it.
	100% affordable.
	We would train Canadian workers to build more homes.
	We also must keep the affordable housing that we do have.
	And unfortunately, the two major parties have let rich speculators buy up affordable housing.
	And now we have no more.
	That's a major issue.
	We need to keep our affordable housing and build more housing in general.
	A couple of ideas.
	First of all, I would like to talk for Quebec.
	There are delays of hundreds of thousands of houses to be built, and we don't have the human resources to do so, but there are initiatives for small housing, for social housing, modular housing.
	Modular housing?
	That would allow us to build quicker with fewer resources.
	And cheaper to accommodate as many people as possible.
	But I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's financial framework because the Conservatives want to cut, cut, cut.
	They're going to have to cut spending at some point as well.
	The Liberals want to cut in revenue but increase expenditure.
	There's some financial magic that's in there somewhere.
	I would like to hear their financial framework or even their electoral platforms.
	That would be nice.
	But Mr. Carney, 500,000 housing units.
	And we need to get started.
	Get started!
	He's been in power for 10 years.
	Promising this for 10 years.
	Say it, Pierre.
	Bureaucracy at the municipal level and in fees.
	But we are proposing...
	A new institution, Build Canada Homes, which is going to build affordable homes using lumber from Quebec, using lumber from British Columbia, using Canadian wood, and using new Canadian technologies.
	We are going to create a new industry.
	How can you say 500,000 units?
	I mean, I could say 800,000, 400,000.
	Where is this coming from?
	You know, if I can have 35 seconds, we need to add funding of $25 billion for the development of affordable homes and $10 billion.
	They've been promising this for a decade.
	You haven't costed your objectives.
	Yes, we will.
	In our platform, which is going to come out in a few days.
	But Mr. Kearney, you're repeating exactly the same promises that Justin Trudeau has been making for 10 years.
	During the liberal decade, when you were the economic advisor, the cost of housing has gone up.
	Oh, that's not quite the only thing you think it is, Mark.
	You have a terrible record in England for real estate costs, real estate prices.
	The problem is that the liberals want to build bureaucracy.
	They want to balloon bureaucracy by creating new departments, new...
	He knows it.
	Look at his face.
	He knows he just failed.
	We need more homes, more new doors on new homes for young families.
	The reason why housing has become so expensive today is because of taxes and bureaucracy.
	I will eliminate the GST on new homes.
	I will incentivize cities to free up land and accelerate permits so that we can build, build, and build your home.
	Let us talk records.
	Mr. Poliev, you were a housing minister.
	How many homes did you build?
	Over 200,000.
	I'll tell you.
	Six. You built six homes.
	200,000.
	Six. Fact check.
	200,000.
	We cannot believe what you're saying.
	You asked a question.
	Can I answer it?
	We cannot believe, Mr. Poliev.
	He only built six homes.
	200,000.
	When he was in power.
	Can I answer?
	We know the answer.
	Can I answer?
	It's such a disgusting SOB.
	It's unbelievable.
	And the cost of the average home was $450,000.
	So thanks very much for reminding everyone of my record.
	It was a good record.
	Clip it.
	It says Gail's claim.
	Doubled. Housing costs doubled.
	And then when the Liberals came in, they doubled again.
	Unfortunately, Mr. Carney benefited from the housing crisis when he was the board chair at Brookfield Investments.
	His company benefited from the housing crisis by buying up affordable buildings and tripling rents.
	Okay, Mr. Poiliev's approach.
	Is everyone for themselves.
	That's absolutely not what he said.
	He said, okay, let's cut taxes, let's cut bureaucracy.
	This crisis, now that we're facing the greatest crisis of our lives, he says, cut taxes, cut bureaucracy.
	In a crisis, you have to do that to a certain point, but you have to act as a government.
	And if I may...
	You need to have capital to catalyze investment.
	And with a small amount of catalyzing investment from the Government of Canada, we can create huge private investment and a new Canadian industry.
	Another proposal that I find interesting is to allow parents who have money in savings for their retirement to take the money temporarily to help for their kids' down payment.
	That's not $500 billion that will be required.
	These are not civil servants that will be fired.
	This is...
	A logical decision made by parents like myself who want to help their kids without money from the state with a tax measure that helps retirees who want to help their children.
	Would that not be more concrete than programs after programs that are just empty words and for which there's no financial framework?
	Yeah, I'll come back to that in a minute, but let's let Mr. Poliev conclude because you were having a conversation with Mr. Carney.
	Mr. Carney.
	In 2020 and 2021, you said that inflation wouldn't happen and that it would have been a good thing if it did.
	You were quoted in the media and you even advised Justin Trudeau to print money.
	And that's what caused our inflationary crisis.
	You're just like Justin Trudeau.
	You have exactly the same policies, the same approach.
	We need change.
	And you, Mr. Carney, you do not embody change.
	You represent the ultra-rich.
	Mr. Poilievre is not Justin Trudeau.
	I'm not Justin Trudeau either, okay?
	In this election, the question is...
	But you were advising Justin Trudeau for the last five years.
	Who is going to face Mr. Trump?
	Trump crisis.
	Trump crisis.
	Same parties, same ministers, same caucus, same idolatry.
	Yes, Blanchet!
	Testify! It's not just because the leader changes that the philosopher will magically change overnight.
	You are all proposing, or just about all of you are proposing tax cuts.
	We'll see them up on the screen here.
	Mr. Carney announced that on the first day of the campaign.
	Mr. Poirier has been announcing them for a long time.
	So for a couple earning $90,000 a year, you can see the numbers up here, $1,299 in savings for the Conservatives, $1,011 for the NDP, $577 for the Liberals.
	And the cost of those measures is really what I want to underline here.
	Mr. Poirier, You're spending more on tax cuts than the NDP or Liberals.
	Now, you've all arrived here this evening with no costed financial plan.
	It's been a long time since we've seen that at the time of the leaders' debate, the leaders don't have a costed plan.
	This is a fair point.
	Actually, decent journalism.
	Trump crisis.
	this, but don't you think it's irresponsible to Canadian voters to do this?
	Mr. Carney, you said you've had
	Trump crisis.
	Wait for it.
	But why not earlier at an event?
	There are 10 days left in the election campaign.
	It's about the same thing as Mr. Poilievre, as I've seen.
	And it is going to be costed.
	And the operational budget will be cleaned up.
	We'll balance it in three years.
	But at the same time, we will be investing in Canada and in Canadians.
	Mr. Poliev, where would you make the cuts?
	This comes back to my earlier question to Mr. Carney.
	In terms of the cost of plants, what do you have to hide?
	Will transfers to provinces go down, for example?
	We're going to cut consultants.
	Believe it or not.
	A Canadian family is spending $1,400 in federal tax just to pay for consultants.
	That's been a 100% increase.
	I'm going to cut consultants.
	Secondly, we're going to cut the cost of bureaucracy through attrition.
	People will be retiring, and we don't need to replace all of them.
	We can slowly, gradually reduce the cost of the bureaucracy.
	Third, we're going to pass a dollar-for-dollar bill.
	For every new dollar in spending, there will have to be a dollar in reduced spending.
	We are going to generate $70 billion more in revenues.
	But again, you and Mr Carney don't have a costed plan that we've seen.
	We are the only party that has talked about ways to increase government revenues.
	We've talked about closing tax loopholes, getting rid of tax havens, empowering the CRA to go after...
	Corporations that are not paying their taxes, these are not tax increases, these are taxes that are already supposed to be paid.
	The CRA has said that tens of billions of dollars in revenues are being lost.
	Pierre Polyev has been very honest with Canadians.
	He will cut, he will cut healthcare, he will cut EI.
	He said this back in 2022 when he became leader of the Conservative Party.
	And Mark Carney has also said very clearly that he would make massive cuts.
	No, no, no.
	He would cut $43 billion worth of spending.
	No, for the first time.
	No, that's not right at all.
	I've said there is an operational budget that's over $200 billion a year.
	That budget has grown 9% year over year over the last 10 years.
	We need to slow down that growth.
	And we'll do that with technology.
	We'll do that with attrition, as Mr. Poiliev has suggested.
	And we can do that, and we will do that, and it's necessary.
	We're not going to cut transfers to individuals, nor transfers to the provinces.
	So the provinces will not get less money.
	Mr. Blanchet, is that what you believe?
	Well, I have an issue with this.
	These are Harry Potter financial frameworks.
	You need a lot of magic to make it work.
	There needs to be more money, but we're going to do cuts.
	They want to be more conservative than the conservatives.
	Basic economics state that when there's a threat of recession or slowdown, that is when the state...
	Well, that's why we're not saying cut taxes.
	We're saying make good investments.
	We want to invest in our military forces.
	It's the time to do so with Canadian companies, the Quebec tramway that Mr. Prodiv doesn't want to do.
	That's what we have to do.
	We have to have targeted investments, health transfers so that the hospital can be renovated.
	It's time to invest in infrastructure, public infrastructure with public money so that everyone can keep their jobs.
	So no tax cuts?
	No, there wouldn't be a tax cut.
	There would be a specific budget for it.
	It's necessary.
	We have to keep going.
	They want to do one thing and the other.
	Cut, but somehow make more money.
	Something doesn't work.
	How has nobody talked about immigration in all of this discussion?
	What Mr. Blanche has said is true.
	You are talking about a magic spell here, Mr. Carney.
	This is one rare moment where we agree.
	On February 16th, you sat down with Rosemary Barton and you said that you would cut spending in the operation budget.
	Operational spending.
	That's different.
	You said, one at a time, please, that this would affect transfers for health care and to individuals.
	I have a question.
	That's not right at all.
	That's not right at all.
	Mr. Carney, you'll have the opportunity to answer later.
	The question that people are asking themselves, and you may have heard this, Mr. Singh, you know, you've promised that every Canadian will have a family doctor, that there will be vastly more nurses.
	Does the federal government need to continue developing more national plans like pharmacare and dental care?
	Or, option two, should they be giving more money to the provinces for health care?
	Mr. Carney, you'll start off.
	More programs or more money?
	First of all, the priority for the federal government is to invest and to catalyze So no new programs?
	No. Mr. Blanchet?
	It's easy.
	All premiers.
	From the provinces and territories, unanimously asked for a 35% health transfer.
	I would like to re-explain it.
	The federal government receives more money than it needs.
	It needs $10, it gets $12.
	Quebec needs $10, but it only gets $8.
	So the federal government could take its surplus and say, I would like to invest in your jurisdictions.
	The Liberals and the Conservatives agree on this, and the NDP loves butting its nose into provincial jurisdiction.
	The Constitution sets out jurisdictions.
	The easiest way is to give the money without conditions.
	You've said that we do need to step in, that we need to have more programs like this.
	Let me explain.
	Absolutely, we need to increase health transfers.
	Absolutely. In order to help out the provinces.
	What is more, we are now in the midst of a crisis, a healthcare crisis.
	It is being felt here in Quebec and all throughout the country.
	We should recognize that a leader is someone who looks for solutions, not excuses.
	I believe that we should be investing more.
	In fixing problems.
	And yes, we can work with the provinces to hire more healthcare workers.
	We can work with them to get through this crisis.
	Pharmacare is one area where everyone can come together to bring down the cost of medication.
	We believe in helping people.
	Deciding Quebec's priorities isn't your jurisdiction.
	This is something that will help out everyone.
	It's money that you would refuse to give Quebec.
	We can do two things at once.
	We can transfer money and then work with the provinces and other solutions.
	More money to the provinces or more federal programs?
	I think the federal government is taking too much...
	Tax revenues and delivering too little.
	And that's the Liberal track record after 10 years.
	And the question for Canadians is, you can't afford your groceries and you can't afford your rent or your housing because it's too expensive now after three terms of Liberal government.
	Will a fourth Liberal term change things for you?
	Enough for you to be able to buy a house and have a beautiful life?
	Okay. For the health program, I didn't understand.
	On healthcare?
	No. What I propose on that is a program that the federal government could coordinate, and that is to do with licenses for doctors and nurses.
	It would be a voluntary program as has previously existed to allow immigrants to be licensed and be able to work in our hospitals to reduce your wait times.
	So everyone agrees on health transfer.
	The question is?
	The 13 premiers of the 13 economies of Canada.
	Canada doesn't have one economy, it has 13 economies.
	These requests were made to stop the deterioration of the healthcare system.
	Next theme.
	Energy and climate.
	The carbon tax was something that was supposed to help the environment.
	But now, what are we doing for the environment?
	It worries me a bit.
	Our planet is starting to die.
	I really want to see someone who can prioritize climate change and the economy in Canada.
	We shouldn't be building a pipeline.
	The environmental consequences are very serious.
	Even if, for ecological reasons, it's not the best solution.
	Well, I think we have to think about it.
	There was a good project in place, but then it was dropped.
	A pipeline would have a major impact.
	We may have to make sacrifices if we want to be more independent.
	Drill, baby drill, says Donald Trump.
	But I have a very simple question for you, and I would like just a simple answer as well.
	You have a 35 seconds open debate.
	Do you want Canada?
	To increase oil production?
	Yes or no?
	Mr Singh?
	I don't know how Carney's gonna answer this.
	I would be in favor of investing in clean energy, renewable energy, with our public money.
	I would spend on projects like an east-west clean energy grid.
	That's the sort of thing we need.
	What's clean energy?
	We need renewable energy for our future.
	That is where we should invest our public funds.
	So, more or less oil, or the same amount as right now?
	You want to increase it?
	That's what people want to know.
	Are you increasing oil production?
	There are a few measures that I support.
	Investing in clean energy.
	We'll get to that in the open debate later.
	What's clean energy I want to know?
	Yes. More oil so that we can reduce our imports, especially our imports from the United States, a country that is threatening us right now.
	But in order to do that, we need to have...
	Low-risk oil.
	Canada is a low-risk country.
	And low-cost oil.
	Canada's more or less that right now.
	But we also need low-carbon oil because we need to be competitive over the long term.
	What the hell does that mean?
	We need to have pipelines.
	We need to invest in carbon stockage, carbon capture as well.
	That's very important for our competitiveness.
	Should we produce more oil in Canada?
	Yes. And the Liberals have been killing it.
	We have to be able to get it to market by pipeline.
	Unfortunately, the other parties passed an unconstitutional law, C-69, which is a no more pipelines bill.
	And that's why Canadians and Quebecers now have to buy 139,000 barrels of U.S. oil every day.
	I will repeal C-69 to allow for the construction of...
	Hydroelectric projects, mines, and also pipelines, so that we can get around Donald Trump and be sovereign when it comes to energy.
	There's a competition as to who will be the biggest oil head here.
	The Americans buy our oil, we buy their oil, because that's how geography works.
	I want less oil, but let us be clear.
	The one that approved 9B for Enbridge, I'd like to ask a question to launch the debate.
	Mr. Carney?
	For 17 years now, the Liberals have been telling us that the only way to fight against climate change is to put a price on carbon, with the carbon tax.
	Such a crisis.
	They undid it right before the election.
	But the first day you came to power, you abolished this tax.
	What should Canadians understand from this?
	Is the fight against climate change no longer a priority for Liberals?
	Not at all.
	It is still a priority, and it's a priority for Canada.
	But we're talking a lot about diversifying our trade partners around the world, the European Union.
	We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in manufacturing and energy in all of our products so that we can have better access to that market.
	But in terms of the carbon tax, we cut the consumer carbon tax.
	And that covers about 6% of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
	We are maintaining the industrial carbon tax for big polluters, but we're creating a new market so that major polluters will pay people and households to make green decisions.
	You would axe the second carbon tax as well, the industrial tax?
	You would emulate both?
	Yes. So there's not even a fight against climate change or no incentive except less gas.
	There's a cost associated with using energy already, but my approach is a pragmatic one.
	For example...
	The National Bank calculated that if we export our natural gas, our liquefied natural gas, to India, for example, to replace coal, that could reduce emissions in India by 2.5 billion tons.
	That's three times the emissions of all of Canada and would also bring...
	A lot of money back to Canada.
	The Liberals are blocking the construction of the pipeline and of the LNG plants.
	For example, LNG Quebec is a project that would make it possible for us to sell our energy very profitably to Europe and reduce Europe's dependence on Putin.
	And that's what I would like to do instead of feeding into Putin's war machine.
	Mr. Carney's abolition of the carbon tax means that Canadians outside of Quebec will receive a rebate for several weeks still for a tax that has been cut.
	So this puts Quebec in an unjust position.
	What are you asking in this respect?
	Another element, it might give Mr. Connors an opportunity to answer.
	Last year, Canada invested $30 billion in oil.
	Trans Mountain cost $40 billion.
	It took nine years to build it.
	That means that with only just these elements, that's $16 billion of Quebec money that was invested in oil.
	Do you want a great energy worksite?
	It's Quebec's green work site.
	So let's invest there.
	The government would preemptively reimburse the carbon tax.
	Now they've cancelled the carbon tax before the elections, but they're still sending reimbursements for expenditures that people won't have to do because the carbon tax no longer exists.
	Quebec is responsible and still has a carbon trade system like California.
	We're being penalized.
	We're taking $800 million out of Quebec's pockets.
	That's $100 per person, including newborn babies, $800 from everyone.
	everyone's pockets, $100 from everyone's pockets to offer electoral bubbles just before election.
	Is there not an injustice there?
	It's not an injustice.
	Quebec is a pioneer in carbon markets.
	And that's clear, first point.
	And the second point, Canadians outside of Quebec
	And British Columbia have paid the carbon tax, and as such, they receive the carbon rebate, and all Canadians, including Quebecers, will receive the middle-class tax cut.
	Because we have what we've done, There's a principle here.
	There's an important principle here.
	Yes, you're going to speak in a moment.
	Just in terms of clarity for those who are listening to us, what reimbursement are you talking about?
	The rebate.
	No, not in Quebec.
	No, not in Quebec.
	But there's a principle here.
	We are making people whole, people who paid the carbon tax.
	And we're doing that in a fair way.
	Europe, Quebec and California has a system that incentivizes companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
	It's about nine cents per litre.
	And it's much cheaper than the potential effects and the future effects of climate change.
	Just to get back to the debate topic, we are talking about the climate crisis here.
	That is not something that is a long way off.
	This is something going on right now.
	We are already in the midst of the climate crisis.
	We have seen it here in Quebec.
	Extreme temperatures, forest fires, flooding.
	Oh boy.
	That, when Mark Carney said, what rebate?
	It's so much worse without the dubbing over.
	So we need to do something.
	I spoke with one mother before I became a father, and she said, I'm worried about my children when they play outside.
	I'm worried about the BC forest fires.
	Our children cannot breathe the air outside.
	And now that I am a father, I feel the same anxiety.
	With forest fires, people cannot breathe the air.
	So we need to do something.
	We need to protect our environment, and we need to protect our children.
	Mr. Poliev, you're clear.
	You're saying that we need a pipeline?
	If, in spite of all of your efforts with the Indigenous nations, they say no, would you impose it, in spite of all of your efforts?
	If Quebec says no, would you impose it?
	Well, first of all, you shouldn't assume that, because...
	Most Quebecers want a pipeline, according to the polls.
	Look, there's no social acceptability for the status quo.
	Thank you very much.
	That is the most empty sentence I've ever heard in this debate so far.
	Can I answer the question?
	It's nonsense.
	Absolute nonsense.
	I'll say what it means.
	I'll tell you.
	Quebecers. Who buy oil from Alberta?
	It's got to go through the US currently, which gives Donald Trump power over our own energy.
	You say you're in favour of sovereignty.
	I'm in favour of economic sovereignty and energy sovereignty, and that requires a pipeline across Canada.
	It's yet another scarecrow.
	The US will never bomb their economy so much by sacrificing a hugely profitable product.
	That's such a...
	An amazing argument.
	How much will your pipeline cross cost?
	Trans Mountain cost $40 billion, but now you want a 4,600-kilometer pipeline without investors, with Europe that doesn't even want to cross place.
	Just to clarify, I would never subsidize.
	That's unnecessary.
	They're very profitable.
	The only reason why it's expensive now is because there are rules and legislation that prevent the construction of pipelines because of bureaucracy.
	We're going to get rid of red tape.
	We're going to open this up to environmental protections, cutting environmental regulations.
	If Indigenous nations, in spite of all your nice efforts and talking about Mr. Carney and you who won a pipeline, if they refuse, what do you do?
	They're not going to refuse?
	Are you saying across the board?
	Yes, we've seen this.
	No, we haven't.
	He can't say that.
	He doesn't get to impose his will.
	Mr. Poliev, if there are Indigenous nations or provinces that are against it, what do you do?
	We'll negotiate if it happens.
	For example, Mr. Kearney opposed a pipeline in the West which would have enabled us to sell our oil to Asia, the Northern Gateway project.
	Mr. Carney, would you be ready to impose one?
	No, never impose.
	Can I respond, please?
	Never impose.
	No. But a couple of points.
	First of all, our relationship with the United States has changed everything.
	So, imports from the United States and geography, as Mr. Poilievre has said, around pipelines, those are problems.
	Those are national security problems for us, and we need to act.
	That's the first point.
	Second. On March 21st, there was a meeting of the premiers.
	All the premiers were here in Ottawa.
	And we sat down and we agreed.
	All the premiers signed an agreement to have an energy corridor that would cover oil, natural gas, clean energy, and critical minerals.
	And with that, and with a process with Indigenous leaders, We can and we could have a solution to this problem.
	And that's an example of leadership.
	That's an example of bringing leaders together to meet a national goal.
	We need to do more than that over this crisis.
	I'll ask the question again.
	If ever Indigenous nations...
	No, I've said no.
	...against it, you forget the project?
	Well, no.
	You cannot force projects on them.
	Listen, it's a question...
	I have another question about the environment.
	Here's the question.
	Yes, please.
	I'm going to try it.
	Give me a second, Peeps.
	Do you agree that it is not pragmatic to continue to...
	Let me see if I can do it.
	Give me five seconds.
	I want to try to go to the French election.
	I'll see if I can do it.
	Voyez le...
	Check ça bien.
	OK? Pas au Québec.
	Pas au Québec.
	Pas au Québec.
	C'est ça, mais...
	C'est ça.
	Pas au Québec.
	There's no rebate in Québec.
	OK, let's see if I can do this.
	I want to hear their voices.
	Absolutely. That's why you need neo-democrates.
	That's why we need neo-democrates.
	No, it's not a new commitment.
	Why do we need a neo-democrat?
	It's not a new commitment.
	Mr. Billy, I believe in the British, you have done like all the great Canadian leaders.
	You have said something in English that if necessary, you would use the emergency powers
	He said in English, if he needed to use the emergency powers, he said of course he denied it.
	He said in English, he said in English, he said in English, he said in English,
	he said in English, he said in English.
	I'm good at that.
	But what does he tell us?
	He says you have to have the approval of the provinces and the support of the provinces.
	It's Canada.
	Canada works like that.
	Another point to find it.
	They have begun to have cooperation with the provinces so that they have a project, an evaluation.
	There are going to be agreements with the provinces.
	M. Blanchet, vous avez dit qu'il y a plus de chances que je signe la Constitution canadienne que dire oui à un projet de pipeline.
	Mais comment on peut, à ce point, se peinturer dans le coin, disant au grand jamais, si ça empirait, les relations avec les Américains?
	Effectivement, le pipeline que vous avez inversé passe par les États-Unis.
	Si ce qu'on importe des États-Unis devient… Plus difficile à importer.
	Pourquoi ne pas se barrer les mains?
	The pipeline went through the States.
	He says he's going to respect the environmental guidelines of the Quebec.
	C'est long.
	Jamais, c'est long.
	Non, parce que le Québec est l'endroit au monde le mieux placé pour développer une superpuissance d'énergie propre avec un énorme marché directement au sud, sans même demander la permission au Canada.
	Pourquoi on mettrait notre argent dans un pétrole qui n'a pas de retombée économique au Québec, si ce n'est d'augmenter ce pétrole?
	Deux petites villes, pour clore le bloc, M. Singh, je vais vous donner la parole.
	Vous êtes en léger retard, mais léger retard.
	Tramway et troisième lien, on est dans l'environnement, on est dans le transport aussi.
	Donc, tramway, troisième lien, est-ce qu'on finance les deux ou l'un des deux?
	La réponse est simple pour moi.
	C'est le tramway, oui.
	On est pour le transport en commun.
	Et on est contre les projets qui sont mauvais pour l'environnement.
	Donc, c'est contre le troisième lien.
	Exact. On est contre le troisième lien.
	On est pour le tramway.
	They're for the tramway.
	They're against the third link.
	They're against the third link.
	Yeah, I kind of like the translators just because I can understand all of it.
	I'm also taking for granted that I understand things and then not bothering to translate them.
	Anyways, that's what their voices sound like, people.
	How do I just go here, there?
	That will be a few seconds behind.
	In terms of the tramway and the third link, we're talking about the environment and public transit as well.
	So the third link, would you fund this or the tramway?
	One or the other or both?
	Yes, for the Quebec City tramway, we support public transit.
	Let's listen to this.
	We're against projects that are bad for the environment.
	So you're against the third link?
	Exactly. We are against the third link.
	We support the tramway.
	What is the third link exactly?
	Hold on.
	One solution to address the climate crisis while at the same time helping our economy is to invest heavily in public transit.
	This would help municipalities, help...
	This would help provinces.
	We could work together with them and use transfers to provide more funding for these projects.
	And they're the sort of projects we need.
	Oh my goodness.
	The third link is a proposed project to connect Quebec City with Levy.
	This is local politics.
	Nobody's going to have any care for it.
	Just the third link.
	You have to make choices.
	And I would...
	Speak to people in the regions today.
	The other parties are against the third link, and they want to ban gas-powered cars.
	That's not practical in the regions of our country.
	You need a truck.
	You need a car in order to live in regional areas.
	So I'm going to reverse that.
	You'll be able to keep your truck.
	We will build highways and bridges so that you can live.
	A good life in the regions.
	Both projects?
	The Quebec government wants the tramway.
	The city of Quebec City, rather, wants the tramway.
	The federal government needs to give the money required to the provincial government for the tramway.
	We don't know what a third link looks like.
	We don't know where it's going to go, under, over.
	We don't know what colour it's going to be.
	You are supposed to give your opinion on that for the past three debates.
	Please remind me of my past.
	Mr. Carney?
	Well, I can be quick.
	Tramway, yes, because there is a project that's underway.
	We support it.
	And as Mr. Blanchet has said, there is no project right now for the third link.
	But I think the third link will be a blue one.
	It'll be blue?
	Right. I don't have a lot of time left, but I'll add one more question.
	Do we have to speed up the development of nuclear power?
	Yes. Yes, absolutely.
	And for a couple of reasons.
	Across Quebec, in Ontario?
	Yeah. His French is so bad.
	I mean, he gets the words out, but they don't do justice to how bad his French is.
	We have a major advantage here in Canada.
	We have uranium.
	We have...
	Big nuclear companies, including Westinghouse, Candu, and others, and we have technology in small modular reactors, so it's a great opportunity.
	I understand there are countries in the world that need nuclear energy.
	I don't think Canada needs nuclear energy.
	Quebec doesn't want it.
	I'm not going to interfere in Canadian energy.
	Well, it could be reviewed.
	No, no, Quebecers don't want nuclear energy.
	Who says?
	I'm also the one that managed the closure of the Gentilly plant.
	But we're not going to reopen it.
	As a national project, I am in favour of an east-west energy grid that would connect Quebec with Manitoba and BC to transport clean energy.
	I'm not so much in favour of nuclear energy.
	I support renewable energy more.
	In favour.
	That's one of the best sources of electricity.
	It provides 60% of the electricity in Ontario.
	Unfortunately, bureaucracy slows down construction without adding any safety.
	So I would take the politicians off the Nuclear Safety Commission and allow scientists to do the work so that we can add that source of energy to the portfolio.
	This is the first time I've heard Mr. Palliev say something pro-science.
	Who just said that?
	Immigration. Was that Jagmeet Singh who said that?
	Next theme, immigration and foreign affairs.
	Don't you love that they have more diversity in the voices than they do in the candidates?
	I love it.
	They've got to have a woman's voice for the voiceovers when it's five men on stage.
	Yeah, that fun voice was Jagmeet.
	Jagmeet's an absolute jackass.
	I'm pretty sure that's a trans person who's doing Jagmeet.
	Why not?
	Why not welcome them if we have the capacity?
	Do you think we should let in anyone who wants to come?
	In the United States, there's one rule.
	In Canada, there's another.
	I think everyone should follow the rule.
	Oh, here, listen to this.
	Immigration. Let's hear what globalist Carney has to say about it.
	We know there are over 500,000 Haitians currently living in the United States who are now being threatened with deportation.
	They might lose their temporary protection.
	I'll show you the numbers here.
	Are they going back to the States?
	Did he say States or Canada?
	The number of people crossing the border in Saint-Bernard-de-Lacol.
	That's our border crossing.
	1,411 people in the first half of April.
	That's more than in March, February, or January.
	So you can see the numbers are growing.
	Simple question.
	You have 35 seconds each.
	Would you accept these Haitians into Canada or not, Mr. Carney?
	Well, first of all...
	This is a question of humanity.
	This is a human issue.
	And these are some of the most vulnerable people in North America.
	But there are limits.
	We have to be human, but we have to be realistic.
	Canada cannot accept everyone.
	And we have an agreement with the Americans, the Safe Third Country Agreement.
	And under that agreement...
	We will send back most asylum seekers.
	So they would be mostly sent back to the U.S.?
	Mr. Blanchet.
	It's amazing that Carney's taken a harder immigration sense than Pierre.
	We can't say we'll welcome the Haitians, but tough luck to the Venezuelans.
	The rules need to be the same for everyone.
	It's amazing, but Quebec only wants the French-speaking immigrants.
	They are Francophones, so it's easier for them to integrate into Quebec.
	If Quebec is able financially to welcome them, then I'm sympathetic.
	But the rules have to be applied, and Quebec's welcoming capacity is at its very limit.
	The formal rule now would be to send them back, because they are in a safe third country, i.e.
	the U.S. Mr. Singh.
	In general, we should do our part.
	It's a question of humanity and compassion.
	We love the fact that our country is founded on immigration.
	That is something important to us.
	We want immigration levels that are in line with our needs.
	Yes, we need to take in people, but if we cannot accept people, well, we don't want them to have a bad life here in Canada or in Quebec.
	So we need immigration, but we cannot take in people.
	What the hell does that mean?
	Yes or no?
	The specific question?
	The question is...
	Do we accept those people?
	For the people crossing the border at La Côte, would they be welcome to Canada or not?
	Because we have the right to send them back under the Safe Third Country Agreement.
	Unfortunately, they have to be returned because immigration has to follow the normal entry points.
	Quebecers are extremely generous and welcoming.
	They welcomed my wife, as Mr. Blanchet mentioned.
	But the Liberal government has abused Quebecers' generosity with an out-of-control immigration system.
	They abused Canada's generosity.
	The population has grown three times faster than the number of new homes built.
	This has created a housing crisis in Quebec.
	Why didn't he mention this in the housing discussion?
	The government of Quebec has been given the power to choose immigrants.
	That was under the Mulroney government that that power was delegated to Quebec.
	So we need to have realistic numbers.
	How did he not mention the immigration during the House of the House?
	What Mr. Paulyev is saying is that immigrants should be blamed for
	You're the dumbest man on the planet, Jagmeet.
	Congratulations. Oh, we've got to build housing to accommodate immigration and not vice versa.
	Quebec is now asking
	Given the number of asylum seekers in its territory, for $500 million, that was the amount they asked for in 2024.
	Mr. Poliev, you'll be starting this open debate.
	Would you be sending a $500 million check to Quebec?
	We have to work with the government of Quebec to fix the damage the Liberals caused with an out-of-control immigration system.
	And I also have to say that I reject the Century Initiative, which is a Liberal policy to balloon Canada's population to 100 million.
	people. That's extreme.
	I think we should go back to immigration levels that are such that the population never grows faster than the number of houses, jobs, or health care services available.
	Would you give more money to Quebec?
	And more generally, where would you like to have the immigration quota set?
	Yes, we'll start with the second part.
	We need to have a cap on all types of immigration for a certain amount of time so that we can increase our capacity to welcome newcomers to Canada, including in housing, in training and language training here in Quebec.
	And make sure that the social safety net can accept them.
	And in those circumstances...
	Sorry, the targets announced by your predecessor, Mr. Trudeau, you would bring them down further, is that correct?
	Well, there are some challenges here in Quebec, for example.
	Challenges with temporary foreign workers, for example.
	And it's a question of distribution, if I can say it that way.
	The distribution...
	of workers across Quebec, and there's a shortage of workers, but we will maintain the cap on immigration for certainly a couple of years so that we can increase our ability to welcome newcomers.
	Would you reduce the number of immigrants to Canada in general?
	Yes. Instead of answering with a simple yes or no, I would want to base our response on the fact.
	It is obvious that we need immigration.
	When I speak to Quebec farmers, they tell me, yes, we need immigrants to work on our farms.
	When I talk to small and medium businesses, they tell me that we need immigrants.
	The question is, what level of immigration?
	We would base our immigration levels on the finance of an expert panel, which would study our capacities.
	Then we would have a data-based Temporary foreign workers are temporary.
	They're a different category.
	Foreign students are a separate category and they are essential for our post-secondary establishments in Quebec and in Canada.
	Unfortunately, It's being used as a roundabout way to get asylum, and asylum is also taken advantage of through smuggling and organized crime.
	We don't want to import vulnerable workers because we simply need people.
	Asylum seekers should be people who are in distress.
	Someone, if you could, clip that last card and share it.
	Based on our welcoming capacity.
	We are not currently in Quebec able to welcome as many people that are arriving.
	Quebec needs to be able to establish what its targets are.
	And one clear element, the federal parliament with a block Quebecois initiative decided to force the federal government to consult provinces within 100 days to determine how many immigrants
	would be welcomed.
	No one can decide apart from Quebec, how much Quebec can accept and welcome.
	Another rare moment where I agree with Mr. Blanchet.
	Temporary foreign workers are often victims of power abuses.
	We would restrict the use of workers who are exploited by major corporations.
	He just talked about exploiting them.
	Immigrants in Canada before the end of the century.
	Dominic Barton, a parliamentary committee, said that they did not take into account the uniqueness of Quebec and one of the two co-authors of the Centre Initiative and 100 million people.
	It's now one of Mr. Carney's close advisors.
	Mr. Carney, on a different subject now, would you say that the immigration system in Canada is going off the rails or has gone off the rails last seven years?
	The system isn't working.
	Whose system is not working?
	Especially after the pandemic.
	Our population has gone up, I think, at about 3% per year because of immigration.
	And that's why we need to have a cap for a certain period of time.
	His government opened up the country, ruined it, jacked up housing prices.
	Now that Jackass wants to have a cap, he's been advising Trudeau for five years.
	Say it, Pierre.
	They want to welcome immigrants.
	There's no problem with Canadians' attitudes here at all.
	It's the responsibility of all of us to increase our capacity to welcome newcomers.
	Is it normal?
	Now, in France, it takes six months.
	In Germany, eight months.
	So, why do asylum seekers coming to Canada I spoke with federal public servants,
	and they told me that there is a lack of resources.
	There aren't enough workers to manage all the files that are coming in.
	It's unthinkable that people have to wait three years for an answer.
	It's a huge problem.
	So we need to have more people working on this.
	People who can make decisions or at the very least provide an answer because it is entirely unacceptable that we have people waiting so long.
	Is this problem solvable?
	Yes. Look, it's all about efficiency.
	Or reducing immigration, Pierre.
	Bogus asylum seekers.
	That's what's slowing things down.
	We could reduce processing times by getting rid of the bogus claimants.
	When people are forum shopping, when they've been to other places, that also slows things down and discourages genuine claimants.
	My point of view is that if someone's in danger in their country of origin, they should be able to decide to come to Canada.
	But if they're not refugees, for example, we've seen a situation in Mexico where people came here without ever...
	Needing to be refugees.
	They never needed asylum, and that causes a bottleneck in the system.
	And so what we're going to do is ensure that genuine refugees can come here and have their lives saved through the generosity of Canadians.
	But how do you separate the real ones from the non-real ones?
	Well, that's the problem, the machine.
	The apparatus is too cumbersome.
	And Mexico was one of the causes in the problem.
	So by eliminating that source, that helps alleviate the problem.
	No, it's not acceptable.
	It's inhumane.
	It's inhumane for asylum seekers.
	And that's an indication that there is a problem with productivity in that department.
	That takes resources, but it's also a question of productivity.
	Why not hitting the brake pedal with kindness, of course?
	Why not slow things down until we have a good system and a good public service for immigration that can deal with files in a few months?
	Oh, he's British.
	Let's hit the brakes of open borders with kindness.
	Who can virtue signal the hardest?
	And they're lost because their files aren't being processed.
	You can conclude, Mr. Carney.
	I more or less agree with that.
	But we need to be, as you've said, we need to be neutral.
	We need to act in a neutral and fair way.
	All right.
	What the hell are they talking about?
	I want to save some time to talk about two other important files.
	International aid, Ukraine and Gaza.
	We've understood your position on immigration.
	Get the fireworks ready, people.
	The question is simple.
	Should we cut international aid or not?
	I'll give you some figures here.
	$2.1 billion is being given to Ukraine currently.
	That's a large amount of money for Canada.
	Ethiopia also.
	Haiti. There's a long list of other countries that we could have put up on the board.
	So they're giving money to the countries that they're also taking in asylum seekers and immigrants.
	What would you cut?
	Ukraine? Ethiopia?
	Haiti? No.
	I would start by cutting off China.
	The Liberal government gave $250 million to the Chinese Infrastructure Bank in order to build pipelines, highways, and other infrastructure to promote the expansion of Beijing's empire.
	I don't think that's a good use of taxpayer money.
	Also, we saw UNRWA.
	The organization in the Gaza Strip that took part or whose employees took part in the attacks of September 7th.
	So I don't think we should be funding that type of activity either.
	The aid we give should be directly to people in need and not through bureaucracies, multinational bureaucracies and terrorists.
	Let's talk about Gaza.
	Currently, Doctors Without Borders, just today.
	They said that the situation was worse than ever.
	So if you cut UNRWA, which might be an imperfect organization, but if you cut aid to them, how can Canada help Palestinians?
	With not-for-profit groups, NGOs that will deliver the services directly to Gazans on the ground.
	Because it's a waste of money.
	Money that's not even getting to the people.
	I will start by saying...
	If there's anyone in an organization with a problem, then yes, that should be investigated.
	But what you said about UNRWA was disgusting.
	This is the...
	On the subject of Palestinians and international aid,
	would you continue to fund UNRWA?
	Yes. We are in a situation where we need to have an immediate ceasefire.
	We need to have all the hostages returned, and we need to resume humanitarian aid to Gaza.
	And at this time, we have $100 million from the Government of Canada that is ready to be provided in humanitarian aid to Gaza with organizations that are working there.
	And that's key.
	And I agree with Mr. Singh.
	There are only a couple of groups that are working in Gaza right now.
	It's a very unique situation in Canada and in Quebec.
	The Jewish community is victims of radical Islamists.
	Palestinians are currently victims of terrible violence from the Israeli regime.
	We have to help people in distress.
	There and elsewhere, it's the best way to have international aid that is not military.
	We need to allow people to live happily where they live.
	And Palestine will not become Mar-a-Lago for Americans that just want to chill on the coast.
	We have to see where the money goes.
	We have to see how much money is taken by Hamas.
	It's maybe less now, but it was huge in the past.
	A lot of money was taken from the Palestinians.
	We have to help Palestinians at the end of the day.
	International aid.
	So the three of you on this side would continue.
	Mr. Poyev, do you have an amount in your mind of how much you would cut in international aid?
	We're going to target waste in all programs.
	We will audit.
	To identify examples like UNRWA when they used funds for Hamas.
	We're also going to find other examples of international waste because...
	Sorry. The decision is to protect Canadian taxpayers.
	We all agree that there's a lot of suffering here in Canada, and Canadians can't afford to pay their bills.
	So we need to find some savings in order to reduce the cost of living here in Canada.
	Mr. Hua, I would like to come back to you.
	I'd like to come back to the question of Gaza.
	Mr. Singh, I'm sorry everyone's had their piece to say.
	The situation is heartbreaking.
	It's heartbreaking to see innocent people being killed.
	Mr. Carney...
	Why don't you call things as they are?
	This is a genocide.
	People in Israel do deserve peace and security, but people in Palestine do as well.
	What is going on right now is a genocide against people in Palestine.
	Why won't you admit it?
	The situation in Gaza, in the Middle East, is horrible.
	It's a genocide.
	But I never use that word.
	In a political way, to politicize the situation.
	But it's a matter of facts.
	That was Mr. Carney's response.
	I think we've understood your question, Mr. Singh.
	Now, we'll be moving on to the next theme, identity and sovereignty.
	This is really painful, even for someone who's Canadian.
	This is terrible.
	Nancy Bernier is the winner of this so far.
	I was surprised to see how proud people were.
	We're Canadian.
	We will not be Americans.
	I think we're going to be more united.
	A brainwashed country.
	I think I haven't seen this in a long time.
	I know, considering Justin Trudeau said there's no core Canadian identity.
	We've all seen this across Canada.
	All commentators have seen this.
	There is a wave of patriotism in Canada, but we've also seen deep divisions.
	In the West, Alberta says it may separate.
	We've got six months to the next Prime Minister to meet its requests.
	Otherwise, there could be a crisis of national unity that is unprecedented.
	In Quebec, the Parti Québécois is nearing power and is promising a referendum during your term, possibly.
	At the end of the day, Are we not as divided or as the U.S. or very divided?
	We'll go around the table, Mr. Poiliev first.
	Unfortunately, yes, there are divisions all across Canada, all kinds of divisions.
	And I think that we've had a federal government that has divided everyone, pitting regions against one another and various groups against one another.
	Social classes pitted against one another.
	We need to unite Canadians.
	We need to unite around our common identity.
	That includes the French language, our English language, our military, the promise of Canada that anyone who works hard can have a great life in a beautiful house on a safe street.
	Is there not division in Canada?
	When I travel throughout the country, I observe great unity, great solidarity.
	Canadians want to defend our country.
	They do not want to become the 51st state.
	Jesus, I can't believe the entire discussion has been done.
	When I talk to people about identity, people tell me our identity is taking care of one another.
	We have programs for that.
	For example, our healthcare system.
	I'll be back.
	I think that people confuse certain things.
	Some people think that all Canadians should follow one single line behind the federal government, and so we only have one economy.
	Mr. Trump's fear, or rather the threat of Mr. Trump has to be taken seriously, but instrumentalising it for nation-building in Canada, where Quebecers are being asked to be attached to their language.
	As a frivolity?
	I can't agree with that.
	Thank you.
	Quebec's uniqueness is also economic, and we have to be on the same level playing field.
	Is there a division in Canada?
	Well, there's always a risk.
	But I think that right now, Canadians are uniting, and they want to unite.
	Canadians want a positive agenda.
	There is solidarity here.
	Healthcare is a right here in Canada.
	It's not a big business like in the United States.
	You better nail them on this, Pierre.
	You better nail them on the people dying in the ERs, waiting two years for a doctor.
	You better nail them, Pierre.
	You're doing better.
	The potential of Canada is enormous because we're all in this together.
	Thank you.
	We're all in this together.
	So open debate.
	We're all in this together.
	How can we think that Quebec, if it's on its own and independent, could be stronger to stand up to Trump in comparison with all of Canada right now?
	Does Canada need to be a province of Mexico to be allied to Mexico against the States?
	We're not in that debate this week, but Quebec does not need to be a Canadian province to talk of its own voice.
	Our economy is doing fairly well, but our economy is different to that of Canada's.
	And the announcements that have been made have helped Ontario Steel, Ontario Banking, the Ontario Automotive Industry to fund Western oil.
	Those were the investments made.
	The counter-tariffs on aluminium are very harmful because people have to pay for the aluminium they sent to be processed in the States.
	They're then re-imported into Canada.
	Two billion dollars to the States in countervailing tariffs.
	For that, nothing happened.
	Can you imagine this entire debate is Trump and the crisis?
	But now...
	Two billion dollars has simply been signed by Mr. Carney for the automotive industry.
	He sees himself as a negotiator, but he hasn't even been re-elected yet.
	Should Quebecers not?
	Make sure that they have a strong voice that collaborates.
	I've already said that we would work with Canada, but I've asked to speak to Mr Carney, but he's never called me.
	He's never wanted to talk to me.
	I want Quebec to be at the negotiating table for a stronger negotiating position with Canada.
	Is there also not a risk like was the case with the automotive industry in Ontario to this?
	Because this could happen to the detriment of saving other industries in our country.
	If we put all our eggs in an automotive basket...
	No, not at all.
	For example, our counter-tariffs for the aluminum sector and steel...
	No, no, they're not bad.
	They're not bad at all.
	He's not finishing all aluminium cans from the States.
	That comes from our mined aluminium.
	No, that's not right at all.
	If I may.
	The counter-tariffs for the aluminum sector are $30 billion.
	The counter-tariffs are $30 billion, rather.
	The counter-tariffs for the automotive sector, that's $8 billion.
	That's a huge difference because there are a number of reasons for this, but our counter-tariffs, it's not just for Quebec, it's for the workers there, are much higher.
	I don't know where that money came from, and I don't know when the industry will get that money.
	We are using the counter tariffs.
	What was it, $2 billion for automotive?
	Immediately for them, because we're shaking in our boots when the automotive industry is at risk.
	But aluminium was not supported.
	There's no processing capacity.
	There's no help for temporary work losses.
	Two billion dollars for the automotive industry, but nothing for aluminium.
	When it's Ontario, the cheques come flying, but it has to be the same for other places, especially Quebec.
	That's the numbers.
	Your numbers are wrong.
	Mr. Paul Yev?
	Yeah, but he's got a point when he says that the weakness in our country right now threatens our unity.
	Your Liberal government for 10 years has the worst track record on immigration, on housing, on inflation, on crime.
	Pierre's been reading my tweets.
	But doesn't it embarrass you to ask Canadians for a fourth term of office after the worst Liberal record?
	You've been advising Trudeau for five years, you liar.
	It's the same old promises.
	And I've been Prime Minister for one month.
	We have an agreement with the provinces.
	We have an agreement with Australia.
	We have an agreement with France.
	We have an agreement with the United Kingdom.
	We have set up negotiations for the next Prime Minister, and that's a decision that people at home are going to make.
	And we've done all of that.
	In this short time.
	And we've also cut the tax.
	We've put in place programs for workers who are most affected by this terrafort.
	And all that in one moment.
	Terrafort crisis.
	Trump. Pierre, tell him you're not new.
	You've been there for five years, you globalist.
	We made requests.
	But we keep hearing, oh, we spoke to provinces.
	Things are great with Quebec.
	But we didn't get any response to our letter.
	Is it because of the final straight of the election campaign?
	What's going on?
	Mr. Carney, you described health care as a right, and I agree with that.
	But you are talking about massive cuts to health care.
	No, not at all.
	You admitted it.
	Mr. Singh, I let you speak earlier.
	The long-time Liberal government House leader, Karina Gould, agrees that there would be cuts.
	One, two, three.
	Mr. Singh, cut his mic.
	I let you speak more earlier, but now we're nearing the end.
	We're talking about Quebec and French.
	Does Quebec have the right to defend French, even at the cost of using the notwithstanding clause upstream?
	Mr. Poliev.
	Yes. Quebec must defend French.
	It's the common language of Quebec, and I will defend French.
	It was a Francophone from Saskatchewan.
	I lost my French a little bit when I was a teenager, but I married a Quebecer.
	Our children speak French, and I understand why French needs to be protected, and that is why I will continue to support laws and policies that allow Quebec and the federal government to protect French all across Canada.
	Using the notwithstanding clause to protect something, you're against that, Mr. Carney?
	There is a general question here around the use of the notwithstanding clause in a preventative way.
	And it's not necessarily a question just for Quebec.
	It's been used in Quebec, but it could also apply in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.
	And it has.
	And so the question is, do we have rights and freedoms here in Canada?
	Are we equal?
	And we need to consider the right balance, certainly.
	But the use of the notwithstanding clause in a preventative way, that's a question for the Supreme Court.
	Mr Blanchet, in terms of the use of the notwithstanding clause, obviously you have no problem with that.
	Jean Chrétien, on behalf of Pierre Trudeau, negotiated with the provinces and it led to the notwithstanding clause.
	And this wasn't signed on by Quebec.
	It was tested.
	It's not the type of use that is in question.
	It's how it is used.
	The Supreme Court has already decided.
	Mr Carney wants to turn to the Supreme Court to disagree with itself in the decision it made with Quebec.
	It's all funded with Quebec money.
	There are interveners from Quebec who have challenged this to the Supreme Court.
	You are going to take Quebec taxpayer money to contest a Quebec bill that is under Quebec jurisdiction that was adopted by the National Society of Quebec.
	It's interesting on this notwithstanding clause for French.
	I believe in protecting the French language.
	During this debate, I have tried to bring up health a few times.
	Mr. Roy cut me off a number of times.
	Look at my time on the clock.
	Every time I tried to bring up healthcare, I was responding directly
	something that Mr. Carney said because health is something about identity.
	It's something I am very passionate about.
	And every time I tried to bring it up, Mr. Roy called me out and cut me off.
	That is not fair.
	John Mead is the biggest loser in global politics.
	On the street and ask them what is important to them, they say universal public health care.
	People ought to know that the other leaders on this stage tonight would cut health care funding.
	And I think that's wrong.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Neither Mr. Brashek nor I have said this.
	And I need to tell people, because it's important, this is what I believe in.
	This is what I believe in and what the NDP believes in.
	That's not right to make allegations like that.
	We talked about health earlier.
	I let you speak.
	But now we're moving on to another topic.
	Yes, but now we need to bring it up in the context of identity.
	What is Canadian identity?
	Health care.
	We have to bring it up in this part of the debate.
	Canadian identity is about taking care of one another.
	We need our universal public health care system.
	It should be strengthened.
	It should be protected.
	We are in the midst of a health care crisis.
	It's supposed to be an open debate, so we should be able to talk about whatever topic comes up.
	There isn't a lot of risk when it comes to the health of a language.
	Let's talk about language.
	There's health care issues in Quebec as well, and I am here to protect the health care system for everyone, including Quebecers.
	Outside of Quebec, Mr. Singh and others, the weighting of francophones has gone from 6% in 71 to 3.5% in 2021.
	How will you reverse this trend?
	People are listening to you across Canada.
	Well, first of all, we are going to increase...
	The level of Francophone immigrants outside of Quebec will increase that from 10 to 12%.
	Second, we will strengthen Radio Canada and CBC with new governance structure and new money.
	Mr. Poliev wants to cut that.
	We are going to strengthen the telefilm industry and the Canadian Council for the Arts so that we can increase training.
	All right, Mr. Poliev.
	First of all, the Conservative Party supported the federal legislation to ensure that federally regulated workplaces in Quebec follow Bill 101.
	We also will increase funding to allow young people to take part in French immersion.
	For Anglophones coming from outside Quebec, and that will enrich the French language.
	And third, we'll make sure Quebec has more control over immigrant selection so that they can better choose those who can be France-sized and integrated into the labour market and Quebec culture.
	That's what we want to do to protect the French language.
	Mr. Koyev, of course, your position on Radio Canada and the CBC has created a lot of concerns.
	You've continued to say that you would protect Radio Canada because it provides a service to Francophone minorities across the country, but you would abolish the CBC.
	How is such a thing possible?
	Well, it is possible.
	We have news networks.
	But they share the same buildings.
	You understand how difficult it will be.
	I do understand the situation.
	I will protect Radio-Canada's services because there's already other French-language news services.
	TVA is an example.
	It is possible to have a news service that's focused on French news services, and the CBC can just operate with its own revenues as an NGO, as a non-governmental organization.
	The principle is that the government should simply do what the market cannot do.
	And the market...
	I would never be able to provide exclusive French services to Francophones all across Canada.
	So there is a role for the government to play in defending French news services.
	When I was a young person in Calgary, that was the only way for me to get news in French.
	So I would protect those services because there's a good reason to do that.
	that. Mr. Paulyab wants to get rid of Radio Canada and CBC.
	No, that's not true.
	And then he would write a check to other companies so that they can provide French language services.
	That's the wrong thing to do.
	We would protect Radio Canada and CBC.
	Protect, protect state-funded radio.
	Of misinformation, which is undermining our democracy.
	I'm not a francophone, but I'm a francophile.
	I love the French language.
	I have fallen in love with it.
	It enriches our country.
	Having Quebec benefits all of Canada.
	The forward-thinking ideas that have come out of Quebec, we need Quebec, we need the French language and we will protect them.
	For the first time since 2011, there are no women here as leaders.
	I met with a young woman.
	This is a very short clip.
	I met with her earlier this week.
	Do you have a question for the leaders?
	Something you're concerned about?
	In Canada, the status of women.
	Yeah, the status of women.
	You're worried about things moving backward?
	Yes, that there could be a rollback of women's rights by some parties.
	That concerns me.
	My question, would you commit to making sure that there are no women's rights that are rolled back?
	And, for example, would you push for having free contraception, as is already the case in some provinces?
	These are the issues?
	Free freaking free condoms?
	We will not eliminate that.
	We will protect women's rights.
	I have a message for Canadian women who are watching.
	We will not pass legislation that would restrict the right to abortion.
	That's been our policy for 20 years, and it won't change.
	That's a guarantee that I make to you.
	We will, in fact, broaden women's rights.
	By dealing with crime against women, women are often victims of assaulters who are released because of liberal legislation.
	They're released repeatedly, and that allows serious criminals to repeat offend against women.
	And we are going to lock those people up.
	We're going to lock those men up to protect women against violence.
	Of course, our party believes in women's rights.
	We would never allow for any backsliding on that front.
	You brought up Pharmacare.
	Well, it was the NDP that forced the Liberal government to bring in Pharmacare.
	It covers now diabetes medication, but also contraceptives, and we believe that is crucial.
	Rights are important, but being able to access the rights.
	We are also the only party running a candidate slate that is half women.
	The other parties have seen backsliding on their candidate slates in terms of diverse people and women.
	But for us, it's an important issue.
	Our candidate slate must represent the Canadian public, and that means it should be half women.
	For us, we will always defend women's rights.
	And also access to those rights.
	There is no member of the Bloc Québécois that will be able to table a bill or motions that are against abortion.
	Preventive MAID will also not be allowed.
	Influence, we are in a very difficult place for women.
	There are many ways that invite women to participate in politics.
	We have reached parity with the Bloc Québécois.
	We wanted it to be 50-50, but in our current political culture, and I have many great women in my party, it's much more difficult at the federal level than in Quebec.
	An aspect of politics right now, the negative politics that we're seeing, it's becoming more and more difficult to recruit women as candidates, and really any candidate.
	But absolutely, we defend the rights of women all the time.
	But what I'm concerned about is the use of the notwithstanding clause.
	Not in a preventative way, but after Supreme Court judgments have been made.
	What does that do?
	It takes away Canadians' rights and freedoms.
	And it creates, and Mr. Poiliev has proposed this, I know the situation, but this is a very dangerous development, because if we start with that, abortion could eventually be next.
	Mr. Poiliev, you can answer.
	Mr. Kearney, I said in a case where a man kills six people in a premeditated way and the court released that person, that means he served four years for each life he took.
	The criminal in that case will be free in 50 years.
	You're talking about danger.
	That's what's dangerous.
	Liberal laws.
	Liberal laws that allow criminals to circulate on our streets.
	I will never excuse for locking murderers up.
	No, I'm sorry, but you're trying to change the Canadian Constitution.
	All right, gentlemen.
	That's what you've proposed.
	I would use Section 33 to put an end to the crime that liberals caused with their policies.
	Where will you stop?
	By stopping murderers.
	That's beautiful.
	That's beautiful.
	Everyone knows that there should be severe penalties for murder.
	You're trying to sow division here.
	Everyone agrees on that front.
	If someone kills someone, there needs to be a strong punishment.
	You're not special for proposing that.
	Everyone agrees.
	Can we end this debate?
	This debate?
	This is terrible.
	Mr. Carney said that I voted for the new Official Languages Act bill.
	The money comes from the previous bill, and the official language minority community money comes from the bill.
	I was asked to bring changes.
	We brought the changes.
	We voted for, but we didn't want it to apply to Quebec because it harms Quebec.
	Gentlemen. That's it.
	Please end it.
	It's over.
	Things didn't turn out perfectly, but Mr. Singh, you say you got 22 minutes compared to 24, 24, 25. And we're all dumber for that 22 minutes.
	Roughly equitable.
	I'm sorry that I did have to cut off your mic, but I'd like to wish all four of you good luck with the rest of the campaign.
	Tomorrow's going to be better.
	And I hope that we'll see your costed plans as soon as possible so that we can see how much all of your promises will cost.
	And I hope that everyone listening tonight will be able to make an informed decision now.
	Voting starts this weekend.
	And the game.
	And the match?
	I don't know.
	Who gives a sweet bugger all about hockey?
	There's still a couple of periods left.
	All right.
	Thank you so much for being with us tonight, ladies and gentlemen.
	That concludes this debate.
	See you next time.
	Good night.
	That was painful.
	And, you know, I'm more personally involved.
	What I can tell you is that the...
	Let me bring this out here.
	The... What do we have?
	800 people watching on YouTube and...
	1,200 watching on Rumble.
	That's not bad.
	But the interest in this, the broader cross-border interest was minimal.
	Yes, sir?
	All right, I got to go start a barbecue, people.
	Last year, they dumped 40,000 people into Halifax, Nova Scotia.
	Now the municipal parts are designated homeless encampments.
	Locals are losing their jobs to immigrants who have their wages subsidized by $15,000, says Chet Chisholm.
	Viva for Prime Minister, says JZambonga78.
	Canada doesn't want me.
	How do they plan?
	At least the vast majority of Canada doesn't want me.
	I was having a discussion, you know, like Canada doesn't even appreciate the sacrifices that some Canadians are making for freedom in Canada.
	And I don't think Canada deserves them.
	How do they plan on building all these houses?
	We've had a lumber shortage since COVID-19 and its price has skyrocketed, doubled in some cases.
	Where are they going to get the labor?
	F these people.
	You want to know how they plan on doing it?
	Encryptus sent me a beautiful picture.
	This is what the affordable housing is going to look like in Canada.
	Everyone gets a pod.
	And by the way, the pod's going to come with a maids button on it, just in case you don't like your pod.
	That was painful.
	Thank you for watching that with me, and I'm glad I didn't have to do a real-life translation in real time.
	Their translation, as far as I could cross-compare, which I was doing, was sufficiently accurate.
	But there's only so many ways you can translate incomprehensible French that came out of...
	What's his face?
	His mouth.
	So, uh, not to make anybody jealous, I'm gonna go make a barbecue now.
	And, um...
	I think there might be some tips in local...
	Ooh, I'll go get those.
	I have a barbecue...
	This is, um, mildly priced steak.
	21 bucks US.
	USDA. It's quite fat, so it's actually a big piece of meat.
	I guess you can only go by...
	It's 20 bucks a pound, and it's a pound.
	So... A couple of these for me and I'll be good to go.
	I'm joking.
	Let's get the tips in.
	Oh yeah, because I'm not using Rumble Studio.
	Encryptus says they are awful.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, people.
	Share. They are awful.
	The funny thing is the trans voice translated for Jughead.
	We have a French version if you prefer.
	If we played the drinking game, says Encryptus, where we all took a drink every time someone said Trump, we would be wasted already 15 minutes in.
	Well, not that the French debate is going to sway the polls, but there has been no change in the markets.
	So I am still 50% down on my investment for a conservative majority, which I thought would have been the outcome when this election first got started.
	Almost back to even on it not being a liberal majority.
	And I've still voted no liberal and, yes, conservative for prime minister.
	Pierre will do much better in the English debate.
	It's not that it's a hard competition here.
	He was clearly the best of the four.
	Although I like Yves Blanchet.
	I mean, I disagree with his politics, but at least he's honest, straightforward, and it's an unfair advantage.
	He's the only one who's native in the language, and he speaks well.
	He's eloquent.
	He's coherent.
	He's just a selfish...
	Provincial guy speaking for himself, wants to pull Quebec out, is looking out for Quebec's best interest, which is fine.
	In that sense, I guess he's really looking out for Quebec's interests, even if it means pulling Quebec out of the Federation.
	But that was a disgusting, terrible debate, and Carney is disgusting and terrible.
	So anyways, I tweeted out a couple of highlights, see how those go.
	Carney is a pathological liar.
	I've been only Prime Minister for one month.
	I've just been advising the Prime Minister for five years, but I've only been the Prime Minister for one month.
	Globalist. I don't know if he's renounced his passports yet.
	All right, guys, I'm ending it.
	I got to go cook some dinner, start a barbecue, make sure my kid doesn't burn the house down.
	Godspeed, peeps.
	I will see you tomorrow, four o'clock, and then we will do this with the English debate, and that should be more fun.
	Maybe I'll have a pleb.
	Come on.
	We'll do a co-stream.
	Viva por el presidente of California.
	PP needs to bring up China and Brookfield.
	Yeah, can you imagine he went to hold the bait and didn't bring up Brookfield?
	He did good, but he left a lot of zingers on the table.
	So, Canada loves me.
	A portion of Canada does.
	I think a bigger portion does not.
	And I can tell you based on the own demographics of the former friends that I used to have.
	Yeah, the plan would be fun.
	We'll see if we can do it.
	Okay, thank you for attending.
	Thank you for being here.
	I hope you enjoyed that.
	You now know what's going on in Canada a little bit better.
	Godspeed, peeps.

▲